![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Removed from article in rewrite
*"Lookalike" passport is the term used unofficially to refer to various passports which are similar in appearance that may be issued by countries with complex nationality laws such as the United Kingdom which has developed different classes of citizenship. as a result of its colonial heritage and domestic constitution. Some of these passports are simply travel documents which offer no right of abode while others indicate full right of residence, cf. a Tongan Protected Person Passport and a Tongan National Passport. Multiple passports dependent on citizenship and residency are also issued in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), where the One country, two systems model has resulted in Hong Kong and Macau having their own passports and immigration regulations, separate from the rest of the PRC. This system is an example of Multiple passport regimes. The numbers of countries and territories offering visa-free entries to these three types of passports from the People's Republic of China vary.
For more information see: British passport, HKSAR Passport, MSAR passport and Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China.
I worked the above into the article as national status but we need a little cleanup if you have time because I'm not going to be free for a couple of hours. How does it read? The reference to lookalike passports on the IPS an dKathmandu websites may be sloppy editing. I'll ask in the British Embassy here when I pop in this morning and get back to you. Spartaz 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The old review has been overtaken by time. Time for another. Spartaz 07:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, started this section a bit late, but as I commented to Spartaz earlier, this article contains information pertaining to visa-free travel (and in fact the visa article specifically points readers to this article to find out about visa exemption schemes). This struck me as very strange. There should be links between the visa-free travel and passport-free travel sections (since they are sometimes related and since passports and visas are also closely connected), but they should be under their respective articles, i.e. Visa (document) and Passport respectively. Although related, visa-free travel and passport-free travel are not the same thing.
Now that the gallery has been removed (which is good since galleries can very well form their own articles, e.g. Gallery of banknotes) there should be more space, but unfortunately you can no longer quickly link to the articles about the passports of individual countries. Therefore I suggest that a template of the world's passports organized by continents should be made (the template would have to have the "Hide" and "Show" feature of course so it wouldn't fill up too much of the page).
Finally I think there might be enough information about "Common Passports" or "Common Passport Designs" to warrant a new section in the article. After all there are common formats for passports of countries from various regional organizations such as the European Union (EU), Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Central America (Parlacen or CACM - not sure under which the common passport falls), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) - with a common passport as well as a common travel certificate which can be used in place of a passport, the Andean Community and the East African Community (EAC). There was also apparently a proposed common passport for the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) but this was overtaken and made redundant by the CARICOM passport and there are plans (or at least suggestions) for a Mercosur passport and a passport for the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) which may or may not have come into existence yet. So overall thats at least 6 regional organizations on 3 continents that have common passport designs with 2 more that have plans for such passports. Related to this (but more appropriate under the Visa (document) article is the issue of common visas (Schengen visas for most EU and some non-EU states, the CARICOM visa and the Central American common visa). 72.27.6.86 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already removed any sections that should definitely fall under the visa article and have begun to expand that article as well. 72.27.29.151 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's true that Russia is still issuing and continues to honor USSR passports, perhaps this should be noted somewhere in the article? And if this is true, how does this relate to the legality of USSR camouflage passports? metaspheres 15:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{fact}}
s.Article was semi protected to deter a persistant IP linkspammer. I have already asked for it to be lifted at WP:RPP and was told it would be gone in a day or two. Can someone remind me to check or make a further request if this doesn't happen? -- Spartaz 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In documents about the Barbary Wars I find several passports for ships (and those aboard). Most of the documents are text, although I have one image. Their purpose seems to be similar to passports for individuals (identification as belonging to the United States and request to be allowed to travel). Is a different name now used for this kind of document? ( SEWilco 06:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
With regards to the recent edits to the introduction ( [3]), it seems an appropriate source would be... well, a country saying so. A private individual asserting "there is no need for a passport if they agree in advance with a country that they will travel without one" implies a country exists which will recognise such an agreement, and we can thus point to that... a video by an obscure political group doesn't seem the best of sources. (The wording also seems somewhat polemical to me, but that's another issue)
The CCPR which you linked to doesn't mention passports; it does mention a freedom of moment within a state and freedom to leave a country in Art. 17, but it also states that this is able to be subject to restrictions "which are provided by law ... and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant". It seems a bit of a stretch to reach the quoted conclusions from it Shimgray | talk | 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In the USA, it is possible to get a second passport for use to get visas while traveling and dealing with situations where one country denies entry to people who have visited another country. It might be useful to include some information on this provision and other situations that allow for a person to have multipal passports. 76.190.206.44 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"In both systems [UK and Schengen] it is not allowed to stamp the passports of persons not subject to Immigration Control, for example citizens of that country (or other EU nationals within the European Union)."
Does this mean that you may get an EU entrance stamp in EU passports if you are going from a non-EU, non-EFTA country and directly into a Schengen country or the UK, but not if you travel between Schengen and the UK? I was able to, upon request, obtain a Dutch entrance stamp in my Swedish passport at Schiphol airport when entering Schengen from Japan. ( Stefan2 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC))
to the Jerk whom said " I have a stamp in my Danish passport for leaving Copenhagen, and entering both Italy and Austria. I suppose it is possible and they do it"
DO u have stamp in your ass?
This is another identity document issued by governments that can be used to travel to other countries in lieu of a passport. It's used by merchant seamen. I suppose it's similar to a military ID. Do military personnel need a passport when traveling?
The Commonwealth Secretariat refers to the Head of the Commonwealth as the British monarch [4]. There appears to be no official sanction for the expression "Commonwealth realms monarch." Indeed, neither the Commonwealth Secretariat's [5] nor the Canadian government's [6] Web sites use the expression "Commonwealth realms." Jonathan David Makepeace 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute over the titling and contents of a particular section within this article, namely that pertaining to the non-use of a passport by Queen Elizabeth II.
"We now have only 16 countries that retain the British monarch as their Head of State." [my bold] TharkunColl 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's correctness or otherwise should be a simple enough question for you to answer. TharkunColl 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you would like to stomp your foot too. TharkunColl 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to think up some reason why the citation is invalid, and then let me know, okay? TharkunColl 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:::If this a Rfc or continuation of the previous discussion? My Rfc comment shouldn't be disected. Simply place your own comment.
GoodDay
23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with
JD Makepeace that there is no sound reason not to use "British monarch". As he points out, it enjoys both official sanction and common usage. Everyone knows what it means. Moreover, this section is primarily about the British monarch, or at least was, originally. More on that in a moment.
I also agree with
john k that this business is tiresome, and caused by one user's riding into this article on one of his favourite hobby-horses. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to try to supplant a common usage which one disfavours with a personal favourite usage advertising one of one's favourite legal facts (or interpretations, it matters little which for these purposes) in contexts where it is irrelevant, and especially not when doing so causes bloated pedantic language, as here (and elsewhere, with this same issue). Finally, I agree somewhat with
Spartaz: I don't think that the section should be deleted altogether, though. I should just say less, or nought, about the Commonwealth-realm passports.
This brings me to a proposed solution: This section is naturally about the British monarch's lack of need for a British passport. The stuff about how and by whom Commonwealth-realm passports are issued is tangential -- it happens to be included in the cited webpage, but it is still tangential and its presence there does not oblige us to include it here, in the section in question. Moreover, the section has crept away from its original content, and now says more about the issuance of sundry passports than about the Queen's not needing one. So, ditch the other stuff, and re-focus on the original subject. I suggest:
There is no need to bring the issuance of passports in the sundry realms into this at all. It is not germane. Notice that I have brought in mention of the other royals (taken from the same source), which is a much more direct and natural connection.
I'm not sure why the referenced page bothers to mention the realms stuff, but it looks to me like a by-the-by, arising from the treatment of the issuance of British passports. I can see no need for the under-discussion section of this article to ape the referenced page, and if we just leave the realms out of it the whole problem goes away.
-- Lonewolf BC 21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Agreed.
GoodDay
22:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone actually object to my proposed wording:
If so, please explain why.
From my view it addresses the concerns of User:Lonewolf BC (extraneous info r.e. GGs and ministers); User:Jonathan David Makepeace (previous monarchs); and Charles and myself (POV elevation of UK above other countries). -- G2bambino 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Please can everyone involved in this unseemly dispute see the above link. I'm a regular editor on this article and have recused from admin activity but its only fair to warn you all that the revert warring on this article needs to stop, Now. 3RR is about revert warring. You don't need to have made 4 reverts to receive sanctions and this is extremely likely if this issue continues to be fought over in edit summaries. Please use the talk page to reach a consensus and stop disrupting the article on such a narrow point. The article is being considered for an improvement drive. I doubt people will bother if the article is unstable or protected because of a revert war. Your actions have the potential to prevent the improvement of this article. Please stop now. Spartaz Humbug! 10:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's omit mention of the 'monarch'. That way we can remove the All are equal VS UK, first among equals tiresome argument. GoodDay 20:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the section completely. I hope everyone is happy now. Perhaps now that you have nothing to fight over you can go and make your contributions elsewhere. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added a different version of the section, in the hope that by cutting the contentious parts and concentrating on the original topic of the section -- the British monarch's lack of a need for a passport, and the reason for that -- the fighting over it will be quieted without losing the information altogether.
If the revised, re-added section is unacceptable to you, say so below and I will self-revert its addition. --
Lonewolf BC
01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, best to leave a note on my talkpage besides or instead, or I'm liable not to notice it as soon -- Lonewolf BC 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts Lonewolf BC, but I ask that we leave the section at the status quo ante. There is no inherent contradiction in issuing a passport to oneself in one's own name. The U.S. Secretary of State does it. The British monarch simply choses not to, and nobody makes a fuss about it. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to highlight Brian's suggestion above by giving it its own section, because I think it makes the most sense:
I'm willing to bet that many, many monarchs are in the same position as Elizabeth II with regard to not having a passport, simply by virtue of their being sovereign of whatever country they reign over, i.e. sovereigns obviously don't issue passports to themselves. If that's true then all we need to do is confirm that this situation is not confined to Elizabeth, then we can retitle the section "Monarchs" and talk about them all in general, thus avoiding pretty much all the contention. --
Hux
11:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This news article on Ertuğrul Osman the last Ottoman Sultan says he wrote his own passport in 1974 and used it for 20 years. I would question the initial description of a passport as a travel document issued by a national government since the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta also issue passports while not being a nation government.
Is this page gonna be 'protected' too (see Rideau Hall)? Not if I can help it, I'm adding a compromise edit (til things are straigtened out). GoodDay 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'd commented in oppostition to G's proposal a priori ( 21:43-45, 10 Aug), less than 24 hours before he made it ( 14:03, 11 Aug), and G. had commented in indirect reference to that comment-of-opposition (strictly speaking, he answered someone else's follow-up comment to my comment) just a few hours before making the proposal. Under the sensitive circumstances, G's implementing of his proposal on the 19th, despite the lack of consensus, was at best unwise. -- Lonewolf BC 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
??????? Shall we protect this page or will you guys stop edit warring over this point? Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
G., you really must take greater care to tell the truth, especially where your falsehoods imply dishonourable conduct by someone else. When I re-introduced a cut-down version of the section, I pledged to self-revert it back to nought if anyone said it was unacceptable to them. No one did. To hear you tell it, I made a promise and then reneged on it, which amounts to calling me a liar.
The truth is that two people, you and JDM, voiced some sort of dissatisfaction with the re-introduced version. That was fair enough, but voicing dissatisfaction with a thing is not the same as saying it is unacceptable. Indeed, it is quite unrealistic to expect everyone to be entirely satisfied with any version of a section about which there has been so much disagreement. The aim was only for something that everyone could live with. You said that the re-introduced version was okay with you, but asked whether it oughtn't be extended ( diff). JDM said he preferred the status quo ante( diff). Although that did not sound to me like non-acceptance, but merely a preference for something else, I asked him for clarification, pledging once more to self-revert the re-introduction if he found it unacceptable, and saying that he need only tell me so ( diff). He did not answer. I must assume this means that the re-introduced version was acceptable to him, though not his first choice. My plege has stood ever since, though.
Your attempt to "satisfy my concerns", still gives the same troublesome false impression that "no passport needed" is unique to Elizabeth. It just "mends" the problem by adding a closing sentence to the contrary. This is awkward and plainly inferior to just not giving the false impression to begin with. The larger problem with your composition is that it re-introduces the bone of contention -- the other Commonwealth realms -- into the section. Both those things are rather obvious, I think. I'm still somewhat amazed that you went ahead with an edit that, considering the circumstances and the objections, was fairly-well tailored to stir things up again. -- Lonewolf BC 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Tharkie, I hope you now see how pointless the sentences about the British Empire and "retained" monarch are; because each country parallels the other in terms of monarchy, no matter what you write about Canada being under the British Monarch I can mirror with sentences about how the UK is under the Canadian Monarch. A silly game, I know, but trying to discuss this matter with you maturely and openly on your talk page obviously proved fruitless.
Please stop being a disruptive editor. -- G2bambino 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I tire of your straw man versions of my position, Bambi. At no point have I said that Canada is inferior to the UK. The imperial connection is relevant, once you had added a paragraph about the Canadian monarch, in order to explain to our readers why she's the same person. And no country upon granting of sovereignty retained the Canadian monarch as head of state, because none of them had had the Canadian monarch as head of state prior to that event (because there was no such thing as a Canadian monarch). Yet again your tunnel vision and narrow POV causes you to distort the English language to breaking point and beyond. TharkunColl 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The same problem, though perhaps in reduced form, would arise. It is possible that two countries have monarchs with the same name and number, and we must assume ignorance in our readers. If Canada is included, we need to say up front that we're talking about the same person. But in fact we only need one example of a country reigned over by Elizabeth II, and if we had to pick just one then I don't think anyone would argue that the UK is the only reasonable choice. TharkunColl 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So should we remove mention of all other countries from the article? If not, on what grounds is the UK, a major power and world cultural centre, and without doubt the world's most famous monarchy, excluded? TharkunColl 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, go on then. TharkunColl 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, look's like Bambi has succeeded in having the section on the UK removed from this article (which is even more ridiculous because the illustration it uses is of a British passport!). I can't understand it really. For a self-confessed monarchist, why does he take every possible opportunity to belittle the country where his beloved monarchy originates and resides? Is it some sort of knee jerk reaction of former colonies against their creator, some inferiority complex that must always lash out at the mother country? It's quite sad really. TharkunColl 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Every citation I give, such as the one from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth stating that the other realms retain the British monarch, is, according to you, "irrelevent" or "taken out of context". I think that you have convinced yourself, by a selective reading of the evidence over many years, that your view is the only possible one. But it really isn't as simple as that. TharkunColl 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you bother adding a paragraph about Canada at all to this article? It mentioned the UK, but it only listed certain selected countries anyway, so why was there any need for it to mention Canada? After all, by your own POV, the Canadian monarchy has no connection whatever with the British, so the fact that the British monarchy was mentioned was in no way a slight on Canada. And in an article about passports, the most famous and influential monarchy in the world surely deserves a mention. The result of your "me too, me too, at any cost" policy has been to devalue this article. TharkunColl —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
The wording on http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4871.asp is "Queen and Passport":
Perhaps the section, once it is restored and deleted a few hundred more times, should be modelled on this text. -- 66.102.80.239 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone acquainted with the disputes on this page please reconstruct your RfC so that outside editors can know what issues you're wanting comment about? See WP:RFC for instructions on how to properly prepare an RfC. Your listing at Template:RFCsoc list states "This RfC is improperly constructed with no place to offer comments on the talk page." -- Yksin 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I initiated the RfC to start dispute resolution, and then became so involved in debate I neglected to fix my incomplete request. Thanks for taking care of that. -- G2bambino 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
i've noticed than when i go on vacations, that all hotels now require a photocopy of your passport. why is this? and is this really allowed? ( Simon.uk.21 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
Is the section on really necessary? It seems to belong to a debate on Irish citizenship??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.137.71 ( talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Answer by Passportman (8/3/2008) Necessary, because qualification for a passport should be discussed on the Passports page. The real problem is that Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland is under "Passport limitations", which is not the right heading for facts about qualifying for a passport of this or that country.
I created the heading "Conditions on passport issuance", and moved Pakistan and Ireland/Northern Ireland to it. Pakistan has a religious qualification for obtaining a passport. Ireland/NortherIreland has place-of-birth and parental citizenship qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passportman ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Some edits by previous editors are questionable and it seemed that the editor are not very familiar with the subject. Terms like "Hong Kong passport" are seldomly used by locals, nor the PRC govt (HK never issue passports on its own right). He failed to realise the existence of British Nationality Selection Scheme (and PRC's attitude towards the scheme). Some corrections have been made. BN(O) ( talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I came back to this article after a lengthy break and I see that the article now requires considerable amounts of clean up. I intend to start this over the next week or so. My intention is to push this towards being an article about passports in general and hive off material that is relevant only to a specific document to that countries passport article. There also seems to have been an increase in unreferenced opinion in places and this will be removed or restored to straight facts. I have posted this note to allow users on this page to discuss and comment on my views before I start. Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The line about the ROC point of entry bothers me, but I didn't want to delete it in case it was actually real. I ended up tagging it as needing a citation. Any thoughts? -- Superpika66 ( talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone might want to verify point four of the requirements for Pakistani Muslims.......doesnt quite sound right but not having a Pakistani Passport handy, I cant verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.56.199 ( talk) 10:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Isnt the image of the "israeli passport" actually an identity card ? Please remove image from article if so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.166.20 ( talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
is the passport has a limitation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.78.25 ( talk) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
One relatively common type of unusual passport is a Seaman's passport used by those working on ships, which generally allow the skipping of visa formalities in most countries for those entering the country for a limited period and then exiting via sea again. — Sladen ( talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
l cant print passport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.28.235 ( talk) 02:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Do Heads of State have passports? I know that in the UK the Queen has no passport and I assume that she has no passport issued by any other of her realms and territories. Do other Heads of State carry passports? Is the lack of a passport particular to monarchs? What about the pope? Does he have a German passport, a Vatican passport, or no passport?-- Oxonian2006 ( talk) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of this debate was support for the proposal.-- Darwinek ( talk) 12:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the visa-free blocks which clutter almost all passport articles (eg. UK, US, Canada, Iraq) be removed for several reasons:
Visa requirements should not appear in articles. It makes articles untidy. It makes wikipedia look like a telephone book. They quickly go out of date. Surely there is a website somewhere that deals with visa requirements that can be linked to? Djegan ( talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Visa agreements of the passports are NOT getting changed daily! That is not a "What would you like to eat today?" article. I update them as/if/when they differ. I check the "IATA-Visa policies" database daily because of my job. I spent my hours, days on those articles. Please, don't touch them. You are just wasting your time, because A LOT OF people will undo them. Because; Wikipedia users want them. And again because; People like those details. People want those details when they check "X Passport". People look for those details. They're useful information for such articles. What would you put there, otherwise? A list of famous pop singers?! Do Wikipedia users/People visit their wiki passports articles just to see some photos&colour of their passports? Not funny.
-- Ozguroot ( talk) 23:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
what a crazy random happenstance; your "I think" is not an official rule/decide of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong there. There's not an insult, there's not a secret plan of removing some articles randomly there. I didn't do nothing than letting them know about your "i think" or your "decide", so they'll check it out. They may think opposite, right? They are moderators & editor of the article in subject. --Ozguroot (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozguroot ( talk • contribs)
I did not violate anything. I suggested them to check the article. I did not say "Do that now!", I did not write "Do what I want". "Google Translate said" is not always a correct/valid source. I speak their respective, native language just like any other Turkish users on their talkpages. ( for the sake of better explanation & communication) Yeah, "I would like to propose" is = "I think..." => != Official Wikipedia decisions/rules.
I have never seen you editing on low-traffic passport articles, or any passport article except one or two for that matter
Are you sure? Let's see what do I do.. Few examples;
Mauritania: VOA facility (21 October 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mauritian_passport&diff=prev&oldid=321189047
Moldova: Gained VOA access to Iran (23 October 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Moldovan_passport&diff=prev&oldid=321587264
Ukraine: No more visa-free to Croatia (11 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ukrainian_passport&diff=prev&oldid=325164931
Azerbaijan: Visa-free facility to travel Iran (18 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Azerbaijani_passport&diff=326437227&oldid=325635301
Albania: Visa-free agreement between Albania-Turkey (20 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Albanian_passport&diff=prev&oldid=326940389
Argentina: An invalid link got fixed for 'Russia' (26 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Argentine_passport&diff=prev&oldid=327951128
Libya: Visa-free agreement signed for Turkey (26 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Libyan_passport&diff=327949344&oldid=327845860
Qatar: A pre-issued visa will not be required anymore (2 December 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Qatari_passport&diff=329240073&oldid=321591728
UAE: The broken link got removed for 'Kosovo' (1 January 2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emirati_passport&diff=prev&oldid=335314827
..etc.
I won't fill this page with full of my contributions links. As you see, "I have never seen" doesn't mean I did NOT do. It's just, you did NOT see. Maybe such articles are not that important for you, I'd understand that, but at least please don't disturb the people who take care of them. -- Ozguroot ( talk) 13:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If we follow your logic, we should totally remove the following articles (Non-encyclopedic nature(?));
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_1_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_calling_codes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games
and the list goes on.. tons of articles as above. Will you remove them too?
What about the following ones?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programs_by_name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reality_television_programs
For the same reason we don't list TV schedules we shouldn't need to list this.
We really don't? You could do a little search before writing so. It seems you don't even know what we have here on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_United_States_network_television_schedule
..And it seems you did not get what do the sections in subject articles do. List of visa requirements of the passports are not getting changed daily/weekly like a TV schedule or a TV channel's weekly programme.
You're always talking about the "difficulty of maintenance". Again, If you don't already contribute to the maintenance, If you don't join the update process of those articles, then i really do wonder what is the "difficulty of maintenance" for you? Thats totally meaningless to me.
Let that "difficulty" to the users who are already doing that, who are already editing/updating/watching them. "One or two edits to a few passport articles does not qualify you to be an expert." Oh no, i don't expect to be an "expert" user to contribute to articles. Should i? Are you an expert? Is everyone an expert?
Again, One edit or ten, one passport or dozens, don't expect never a daily update for all the passport articles. And again, that is not a TV schedule, that is an official governmental document and governments don't do daily visa agreements. Few or lots, i just contribute to the articles as good as, as much as i can. I did not create those articles, I did not create those sections, I just improve the current sections of the current already-existing Wikipedia articles. "Just few", "Not expert", but please respect my time and my effort.
No, I am not the only one. The user named Vmenkov wrote here a lot of very logic and meaningful comments about why they SHOULD NOT be removed. I won't copy&paste anything from him, just read him once again.
By the way, the sections you are trying to delete have their own PNG image or SVN map files. Those images are great efforts of the people, of the Wikipedia users. They'll surely get angry when they will see their images got removed without any serious reason, they spent hours on them. Help them or respect them.
They are almost impossible to maintain.
Yep, you're right! They really are impossible to maintain, now! And they will be, if you will continue removing their sections just because you are not entirely sure who would update them.
I'm not entirely sure who would notice, but it certainly wouldn't be me. Would it be you?
Yes, it would.
If it wouldn't be you, If you won't do, let the others do. Thanks. -- Ozguroot ( talk) 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
My answers were for the user "what a crazy random happenstance".
The "Visa requirements for X passport holders" section in the passports articles is absolutely, totally normal for Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with that. Thats the structure of Wikipedia, depending and varying on the properties of the articles. (As the given examples above.)
Some more examples;
The Article - Sub-Articles/Sections
Poland => List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Poland => List of Poles
PlayStation 1 => List of PlayStation 1 Games
Swedish Passport => List of Visa requirements for Swedish passport holders
"Why isn't there a "date of last update" somewhere in the articles?" A good point. That was what i tried long time ago. I added such a "date of last update" on 'Turkish Passport' article. You can see it in its old revisions. But later i removed it because i was already updating it almost instantly (of course if/when the visa regimes get change).
About getting the changes/updates, I say again; I have my own private/paid account (because of my work). I receive notifications from IATA / ICAO regarding the visa updates/changes.
Okay then, I'll add such a note ('last updated') in all those articles. I'll remove the Delta/Timatic..etc links and try to find the official governmental references/sources for each of them.
We'll solve the problems by talking, not by firstly starting to remove some of the sections, randomly.
There's a saying in Turkish: "İğneyi bulmak için samanlığı yakma." == "Don't burn the whole hayloft to find the needle"
Thanks.
-- Ozguroot ( talk) 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
These tables are most certainly not encyclopaedic. RashersTierney ( talk) 01:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
An example notification text from "Turkish Passport" page;
"Warning: The table is valid only for touristic and/or visiting purposes. Visas for other purposes might have a different implementation. Most of the countries below which are labeled as "not requiring visa", requests a valid return ticket, documents for confirmed accommodation arrangement and evidence of adequate funds to self-support. For your own convenience, please contact with the representative of the country/territory of your destination prior to your departure." -- Ozguroot ( talk) 02:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to find the claimed "consensus" for Blue-Haired Lawyer's deletion-spree. Can't find it here. where is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. They shouldn't be removed.
Also => WP:NLT
And what about the same articles in multiple languages? 'Visas' sections even in different languages. Too many combinations..
As a case in point;
"Serbian Passport" article:
In Serbo-Croatian: http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srpski_paso%C5%A1
In Serbian: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%88
In English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_passport
It seems updating such sections is at least easier than removing them completely.-- Ozguroot ( talk) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose removal. The info should be updated or tagged for update, not removed. Valenciano ( talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Removed from article in rewrite
*"Lookalike" passport is the term used unofficially to refer to various passports which are similar in appearance that may be issued by countries with complex nationality laws such as the United Kingdom which has developed different classes of citizenship. as a result of its colonial heritage and domestic constitution. Some of these passports are simply travel documents which offer no right of abode while others indicate full right of residence, cf. a Tongan Protected Person Passport and a Tongan National Passport. Multiple passports dependent on citizenship and residency are also issued in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), where the One country, two systems model has resulted in Hong Kong and Macau having their own passports and immigration regulations, separate from the rest of the PRC. This system is an example of Multiple passport regimes. The numbers of countries and territories offering visa-free entries to these three types of passports from the People's Republic of China vary.
For more information see: British passport, HKSAR Passport, MSAR passport and Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China.
I worked the above into the article as national status but we need a little cleanup if you have time because I'm not going to be free for a couple of hours. How does it read? The reference to lookalike passports on the IPS an dKathmandu websites may be sloppy editing. I'll ask in the British Embassy here when I pop in this morning and get back to you. Spartaz 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The old review has been overtaken by time. Time for another. Spartaz 07:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, started this section a bit late, but as I commented to Spartaz earlier, this article contains information pertaining to visa-free travel (and in fact the visa article specifically points readers to this article to find out about visa exemption schemes). This struck me as very strange. There should be links between the visa-free travel and passport-free travel sections (since they are sometimes related and since passports and visas are also closely connected), but they should be under their respective articles, i.e. Visa (document) and Passport respectively. Although related, visa-free travel and passport-free travel are not the same thing.
Now that the gallery has been removed (which is good since galleries can very well form their own articles, e.g. Gallery of banknotes) there should be more space, but unfortunately you can no longer quickly link to the articles about the passports of individual countries. Therefore I suggest that a template of the world's passports organized by continents should be made (the template would have to have the "Hide" and "Show" feature of course so it wouldn't fill up too much of the page).
Finally I think there might be enough information about "Common Passports" or "Common Passport Designs" to warrant a new section in the article. After all there are common formats for passports of countries from various regional organizations such as the European Union (EU), Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Central America (Parlacen or CACM - not sure under which the common passport falls), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) - with a common passport as well as a common travel certificate which can be used in place of a passport, the Andean Community and the East African Community (EAC). There was also apparently a proposed common passport for the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) but this was overtaken and made redundant by the CARICOM passport and there are plans (or at least suggestions) for a Mercosur passport and a passport for the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) which may or may not have come into existence yet. So overall thats at least 6 regional organizations on 3 continents that have common passport designs with 2 more that have plans for such passports. Related to this (but more appropriate under the Visa (document) article is the issue of common visas (Schengen visas for most EU and some non-EU states, the CARICOM visa and the Central American common visa). 72.27.6.86 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already removed any sections that should definitely fall under the visa article and have begun to expand that article as well. 72.27.29.151 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's true that Russia is still issuing and continues to honor USSR passports, perhaps this should be noted somewhere in the article? And if this is true, how does this relate to the legality of USSR camouflage passports? metaspheres 15:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{fact}}
s.Article was semi protected to deter a persistant IP linkspammer. I have already asked for it to be lifted at WP:RPP and was told it would be gone in a day or two. Can someone remind me to check or make a further request if this doesn't happen? -- Spartaz 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In documents about the Barbary Wars I find several passports for ships (and those aboard). Most of the documents are text, although I have one image. Their purpose seems to be similar to passports for individuals (identification as belonging to the United States and request to be allowed to travel). Is a different name now used for this kind of document? ( SEWilco 06:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
With regards to the recent edits to the introduction ( [3]), it seems an appropriate source would be... well, a country saying so. A private individual asserting "there is no need for a passport if they agree in advance with a country that they will travel without one" implies a country exists which will recognise such an agreement, and we can thus point to that... a video by an obscure political group doesn't seem the best of sources. (The wording also seems somewhat polemical to me, but that's another issue)
The CCPR which you linked to doesn't mention passports; it does mention a freedom of moment within a state and freedom to leave a country in Art. 17, but it also states that this is able to be subject to restrictions "which are provided by law ... and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant". It seems a bit of a stretch to reach the quoted conclusions from it Shimgray | talk | 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In the USA, it is possible to get a second passport for use to get visas while traveling and dealing with situations where one country denies entry to people who have visited another country. It might be useful to include some information on this provision and other situations that allow for a person to have multipal passports. 76.190.206.44 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"In both systems [UK and Schengen] it is not allowed to stamp the passports of persons not subject to Immigration Control, for example citizens of that country (or other EU nationals within the European Union)."
Does this mean that you may get an EU entrance stamp in EU passports if you are going from a non-EU, non-EFTA country and directly into a Schengen country or the UK, but not if you travel between Schengen and the UK? I was able to, upon request, obtain a Dutch entrance stamp in my Swedish passport at Schiphol airport when entering Schengen from Japan. ( Stefan2 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC))
to the Jerk whom said " I have a stamp in my Danish passport for leaving Copenhagen, and entering both Italy and Austria. I suppose it is possible and they do it"
DO u have stamp in your ass?
This is another identity document issued by governments that can be used to travel to other countries in lieu of a passport. It's used by merchant seamen. I suppose it's similar to a military ID. Do military personnel need a passport when traveling?
The Commonwealth Secretariat refers to the Head of the Commonwealth as the British monarch [4]. There appears to be no official sanction for the expression "Commonwealth realms monarch." Indeed, neither the Commonwealth Secretariat's [5] nor the Canadian government's [6] Web sites use the expression "Commonwealth realms." Jonathan David Makepeace 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute over the titling and contents of a particular section within this article, namely that pertaining to the non-use of a passport by Queen Elizabeth II.
"We now have only 16 countries that retain the British monarch as their Head of State." [my bold] TharkunColl 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's correctness or otherwise should be a simple enough question for you to answer. TharkunColl 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you would like to stomp your foot too. TharkunColl 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to think up some reason why the citation is invalid, and then let me know, okay? TharkunColl 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:::If this a Rfc or continuation of the previous discussion? My Rfc comment shouldn't be disected. Simply place your own comment.
GoodDay
23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with
JD Makepeace that there is no sound reason not to use "British monarch". As he points out, it enjoys both official sanction and common usage. Everyone knows what it means. Moreover, this section is primarily about the British monarch, or at least was, originally. More on that in a moment.
I also agree with
john k that this business is tiresome, and caused by one user's riding into this article on one of his favourite hobby-horses. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to try to supplant a common usage which one disfavours with a personal favourite usage advertising one of one's favourite legal facts (or interpretations, it matters little which for these purposes) in contexts where it is irrelevant, and especially not when doing so causes bloated pedantic language, as here (and elsewhere, with this same issue). Finally, I agree somewhat with
Spartaz: I don't think that the section should be deleted altogether, though. I should just say less, or nought, about the Commonwealth-realm passports.
This brings me to a proposed solution: This section is naturally about the British monarch's lack of need for a British passport. The stuff about how and by whom Commonwealth-realm passports are issued is tangential -- it happens to be included in the cited webpage, but it is still tangential and its presence there does not oblige us to include it here, in the section in question. Moreover, the section has crept away from its original content, and now says more about the issuance of sundry passports than about the Queen's not needing one. So, ditch the other stuff, and re-focus on the original subject. I suggest:
There is no need to bring the issuance of passports in the sundry realms into this at all. It is not germane. Notice that I have brought in mention of the other royals (taken from the same source), which is a much more direct and natural connection.
I'm not sure why the referenced page bothers to mention the realms stuff, but it looks to me like a by-the-by, arising from the treatment of the issuance of British passports. I can see no need for the under-discussion section of this article to ape the referenced page, and if we just leave the realms out of it the whole problem goes away.
-- Lonewolf BC 21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Agreed.
GoodDay
22:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone actually object to my proposed wording:
If so, please explain why.
From my view it addresses the concerns of User:Lonewolf BC (extraneous info r.e. GGs and ministers); User:Jonathan David Makepeace (previous monarchs); and Charles and myself (POV elevation of UK above other countries). -- G2bambino 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Please can everyone involved in this unseemly dispute see the above link. I'm a regular editor on this article and have recused from admin activity but its only fair to warn you all that the revert warring on this article needs to stop, Now. 3RR is about revert warring. You don't need to have made 4 reverts to receive sanctions and this is extremely likely if this issue continues to be fought over in edit summaries. Please use the talk page to reach a consensus and stop disrupting the article on such a narrow point. The article is being considered for an improvement drive. I doubt people will bother if the article is unstable or protected because of a revert war. Your actions have the potential to prevent the improvement of this article. Please stop now. Spartaz Humbug! 10:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's omit mention of the 'monarch'. That way we can remove the All are equal VS UK, first among equals tiresome argument. GoodDay 20:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the section completely. I hope everyone is happy now. Perhaps now that you have nothing to fight over you can go and make your contributions elsewhere. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added a different version of the section, in the hope that by cutting the contentious parts and concentrating on the original topic of the section -- the British monarch's lack of a need for a passport, and the reason for that -- the fighting over it will be quieted without losing the information altogether.
If the revised, re-added section is unacceptable to you, say so below and I will self-revert its addition. --
Lonewolf BC
01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, best to leave a note on my talkpage besides or instead, or I'm liable not to notice it as soon -- Lonewolf BC 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts Lonewolf BC, but I ask that we leave the section at the status quo ante. There is no inherent contradiction in issuing a passport to oneself in one's own name. The U.S. Secretary of State does it. The British monarch simply choses not to, and nobody makes a fuss about it. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to highlight Brian's suggestion above by giving it its own section, because I think it makes the most sense:
I'm willing to bet that many, many monarchs are in the same position as Elizabeth II with regard to not having a passport, simply by virtue of their being sovereign of whatever country they reign over, i.e. sovereigns obviously don't issue passports to themselves. If that's true then all we need to do is confirm that this situation is not confined to Elizabeth, then we can retitle the section "Monarchs" and talk about them all in general, thus avoiding pretty much all the contention. --
Hux
11:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This news article on Ertuğrul Osman the last Ottoman Sultan says he wrote his own passport in 1974 and used it for 20 years. I would question the initial description of a passport as a travel document issued by a national government since the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta also issue passports while not being a nation government.
Is this page gonna be 'protected' too (see Rideau Hall)? Not if I can help it, I'm adding a compromise edit (til things are straigtened out). GoodDay 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'd commented in oppostition to G's proposal a priori ( 21:43-45, 10 Aug), less than 24 hours before he made it ( 14:03, 11 Aug), and G. had commented in indirect reference to that comment-of-opposition (strictly speaking, he answered someone else's follow-up comment to my comment) just a few hours before making the proposal. Under the sensitive circumstances, G's implementing of his proposal on the 19th, despite the lack of consensus, was at best unwise. -- Lonewolf BC 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
??????? Shall we protect this page or will you guys stop edit warring over this point? Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
G., you really must take greater care to tell the truth, especially where your falsehoods imply dishonourable conduct by someone else. When I re-introduced a cut-down version of the section, I pledged to self-revert it back to nought if anyone said it was unacceptable to them. No one did. To hear you tell it, I made a promise and then reneged on it, which amounts to calling me a liar.
The truth is that two people, you and JDM, voiced some sort of dissatisfaction with the re-introduced version. That was fair enough, but voicing dissatisfaction with a thing is not the same as saying it is unacceptable. Indeed, it is quite unrealistic to expect everyone to be entirely satisfied with any version of a section about which there has been so much disagreement. The aim was only for something that everyone could live with. You said that the re-introduced version was okay with you, but asked whether it oughtn't be extended ( diff). JDM said he preferred the status quo ante( diff). Although that did not sound to me like non-acceptance, but merely a preference for something else, I asked him for clarification, pledging once more to self-revert the re-introduction if he found it unacceptable, and saying that he need only tell me so ( diff). He did not answer. I must assume this means that the re-introduced version was acceptable to him, though not his first choice. My plege has stood ever since, though.
Your attempt to "satisfy my concerns", still gives the same troublesome false impression that "no passport needed" is unique to Elizabeth. It just "mends" the problem by adding a closing sentence to the contrary. This is awkward and plainly inferior to just not giving the false impression to begin with. The larger problem with your composition is that it re-introduces the bone of contention -- the other Commonwealth realms -- into the section. Both those things are rather obvious, I think. I'm still somewhat amazed that you went ahead with an edit that, considering the circumstances and the objections, was fairly-well tailored to stir things up again. -- Lonewolf BC 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Tharkie, I hope you now see how pointless the sentences about the British Empire and "retained" monarch are; because each country parallels the other in terms of monarchy, no matter what you write about Canada being under the British Monarch I can mirror with sentences about how the UK is under the Canadian Monarch. A silly game, I know, but trying to discuss this matter with you maturely and openly on your talk page obviously proved fruitless.
Please stop being a disruptive editor. -- G2bambino 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I tire of your straw man versions of my position, Bambi. At no point have I said that Canada is inferior to the UK. The imperial connection is relevant, once you had added a paragraph about the Canadian monarch, in order to explain to our readers why she's the same person. And no country upon granting of sovereignty retained the Canadian monarch as head of state, because none of them had had the Canadian monarch as head of state prior to that event (because there was no such thing as a Canadian monarch). Yet again your tunnel vision and narrow POV causes you to distort the English language to breaking point and beyond. TharkunColl 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The same problem, though perhaps in reduced form, would arise. It is possible that two countries have monarchs with the same name and number, and we must assume ignorance in our readers. If Canada is included, we need to say up front that we're talking about the same person. But in fact we only need one example of a country reigned over by Elizabeth II, and if we had to pick just one then I don't think anyone would argue that the UK is the only reasonable choice. TharkunColl 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So should we remove mention of all other countries from the article? If not, on what grounds is the UK, a major power and world cultural centre, and without doubt the world's most famous monarchy, excluded? TharkunColl 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, go on then. TharkunColl 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, look's like Bambi has succeeded in having the section on the UK removed from this article (which is even more ridiculous because the illustration it uses is of a British passport!). I can't understand it really. For a self-confessed monarchist, why does he take every possible opportunity to belittle the country where his beloved monarchy originates and resides? Is it some sort of knee jerk reaction of former colonies against their creator, some inferiority complex that must always lash out at the mother country? It's quite sad really. TharkunColl 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Every citation I give, such as the one from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth stating that the other realms retain the British monarch, is, according to you, "irrelevent" or "taken out of context". I think that you have convinced yourself, by a selective reading of the evidence over many years, that your view is the only possible one. But it really isn't as simple as that. TharkunColl 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you bother adding a paragraph about Canada at all to this article? It mentioned the UK, but it only listed certain selected countries anyway, so why was there any need for it to mention Canada? After all, by your own POV, the Canadian monarchy has no connection whatever with the British, so the fact that the British monarchy was mentioned was in no way a slight on Canada. And in an article about passports, the most famous and influential monarchy in the world surely deserves a mention. The result of your "me too, me too, at any cost" policy has been to devalue this article. TharkunColl —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
The wording on http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4871.asp is "Queen and Passport":
Perhaps the section, once it is restored and deleted a few hundred more times, should be modelled on this text. -- 66.102.80.239 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone acquainted with the disputes on this page please reconstruct your RfC so that outside editors can know what issues you're wanting comment about? See WP:RFC for instructions on how to properly prepare an RfC. Your listing at Template:RFCsoc list states "This RfC is improperly constructed with no place to offer comments on the talk page." -- Yksin 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I initiated the RfC to start dispute resolution, and then became so involved in debate I neglected to fix my incomplete request. Thanks for taking care of that. -- G2bambino 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
i've noticed than when i go on vacations, that all hotels now require a photocopy of your passport. why is this? and is this really allowed? ( Simon.uk.21 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
Is the section on really necessary? It seems to belong to a debate on Irish citizenship??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.137.71 ( talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Answer by Passportman (8/3/2008) Necessary, because qualification for a passport should be discussed on the Passports page. The real problem is that Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland is under "Passport limitations", which is not the right heading for facts about qualifying for a passport of this or that country.
I created the heading "Conditions on passport issuance", and moved Pakistan and Ireland/Northern Ireland to it. Pakistan has a religious qualification for obtaining a passport. Ireland/NortherIreland has place-of-birth and parental citizenship qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passportman ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Some edits by previous editors are questionable and it seemed that the editor are not very familiar with the subject. Terms like "Hong Kong passport" are seldomly used by locals, nor the PRC govt (HK never issue passports on its own right). He failed to realise the existence of British Nationality Selection Scheme (and PRC's attitude towards the scheme). Some corrections have been made. BN(O) ( talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I came back to this article after a lengthy break and I see that the article now requires considerable amounts of clean up. I intend to start this over the next week or so. My intention is to push this towards being an article about passports in general and hive off material that is relevant only to a specific document to that countries passport article. There also seems to have been an increase in unreferenced opinion in places and this will be removed or restored to straight facts. I have posted this note to allow users on this page to discuss and comment on my views before I start. Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The line about the ROC point of entry bothers me, but I didn't want to delete it in case it was actually real. I ended up tagging it as needing a citation. Any thoughts? -- Superpika66 ( talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone might want to verify point four of the requirements for Pakistani Muslims.......doesnt quite sound right but not having a Pakistani Passport handy, I cant verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.56.199 ( talk) 10:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Isnt the image of the "israeli passport" actually an identity card ? Please remove image from article if so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.166.20 ( talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
is the passport has a limitation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.78.25 ( talk) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
One relatively common type of unusual passport is a Seaman's passport used by those working on ships, which generally allow the skipping of visa formalities in most countries for those entering the country for a limited period and then exiting via sea again. — Sladen ( talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
l cant print passport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.28.235 ( talk) 02:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Do Heads of State have passports? I know that in the UK the Queen has no passport and I assume that she has no passport issued by any other of her realms and territories. Do other Heads of State carry passports? Is the lack of a passport particular to monarchs? What about the pope? Does he have a German passport, a Vatican passport, or no passport?-- Oxonian2006 ( talk) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of this debate was support for the proposal.-- Darwinek ( talk) 12:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the visa-free blocks which clutter almost all passport articles (eg. UK, US, Canada, Iraq) be removed for several reasons:
Visa requirements should not appear in articles. It makes articles untidy. It makes wikipedia look like a telephone book. They quickly go out of date. Surely there is a website somewhere that deals with visa requirements that can be linked to? Djegan ( talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Visa agreements of the passports are NOT getting changed daily! That is not a "What would you like to eat today?" article. I update them as/if/when they differ. I check the "IATA-Visa policies" database daily because of my job. I spent my hours, days on those articles. Please, don't touch them. You are just wasting your time, because A LOT OF people will undo them. Because; Wikipedia users want them. And again because; People like those details. People want those details when they check "X Passport". People look for those details. They're useful information for such articles. What would you put there, otherwise? A list of famous pop singers?! Do Wikipedia users/People visit their wiki passports articles just to see some photos&colour of their passports? Not funny.
-- Ozguroot ( talk) 23:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
what a crazy random happenstance; your "I think" is not an official rule/decide of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong there. There's not an insult, there's not a secret plan of removing some articles randomly there. I didn't do nothing than letting them know about your "i think" or your "decide", so they'll check it out. They may think opposite, right? They are moderators & editor of the article in subject. --Ozguroot (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozguroot ( talk • contribs)
I did not violate anything. I suggested them to check the article. I did not say "Do that now!", I did not write "Do what I want". "Google Translate said" is not always a correct/valid source. I speak their respective, native language just like any other Turkish users on their talkpages. ( for the sake of better explanation & communication) Yeah, "I would like to propose" is = "I think..." => != Official Wikipedia decisions/rules.
I have never seen you editing on low-traffic passport articles, or any passport article except one or two for that matter
Are you sure? Let's see what do I do.. Few examples;
Mauritania: VOA facility (21 October 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mauritian_passport&diff=prev&oldid=321189047
Moldova: Gained VOA access to Iran (23 October 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Moldovan_passport&diff=prev&oldid=321587264
Ukraine: No more visa-free to Croatia (11 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ukrainian_passport&diff=prev&oldid=325164931
Azerbaijan: Visa-free facility to travel Iran (18 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Azerbaijani_passport&diff=326437227&oldid=325635301
Albania: Visa-free agreement between Albania-Turkey (20 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Albanian_passport&diff=prev&oldid=326940389
Argentina: An invalid link got fixed for 'Russia' (26 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Argentine_passport&diff=prev&oldid=327951128
Libya: Visa-free agreement signed for Turkey (26 November 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Libyan_passport&diff=327949344&oldid=327845860
Qatar: A pre-issued visa will not be required anymore (2 December 2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Qatari_passport&diff=329240073&oldid=321591728
UAE: The broken link got removed for 'Kosovo' (1 January 2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emirati_passport&diff=prev&oldid=335314827
..etc.
I won't fill this page with full of my contributions links. As you see, "I have never seen" doesn't mean I did NOT do. It's just, you did NOT see. Maybe such articles are not that important for you, I'd understand that, but at least please don't disturb the people who take care of them. -- Ozguroot ( talk) 13:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If we follow your logic, we should totally remove the following articles (Non-encyclopedic nature(?));
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_1_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_calling_codes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games
and the list goes on.. tons of articles as above. Will you remove them too?
What about the following ones?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programs_by_name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reality_television_programs
For the same reason we don't list TV schedules we shouldn't need to list this.
We really don't? You could do a little search before writing so. It seems you don't even know what we have here on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_United_States_network_television_schedule
..And it seems you did not get what do the sections in subject articles do. List of visa requirements of the passports are not getting changed daily/weekly like a TV schedule or a TV channel's weekly programme.
You're always talking about the "difficulty of maintenance". Again, If you don't already contribute to the maintenance, If you don't join the update process of those articles, then i really do wonder what is the "difficulty of maintenance" for you? Thats totally meaningless to me.
Let that "difficulty" to the users who are already doing that, who are already editing/updating/watching them. "One or two edits to a few passport articles does not qualify you to be an expert." Oh no, i don't expect to be an "expert" user to contribute to articles. Should i? Are you an expert? Is everyone an expert?
Again, One edit or ten, one passport or dozens, don't expect never a daily update for all the passport articles. And again, that is not a TV schedule, that is an official governmental document and governments don't do daily visa agreements. Few or lots, i just contribute to the articles as good as, as much as i can. I did not create those articles, I did not create those sections, I just improve the current sections of the current already-existing Wikipedia articles. "Just few", "Not expert", but please respect my time and my effort.
No, I am not the only one. The user named Vmenkov wrote here a lot of very logic and meaningful comments about why they SHOULD NOT be removed. I won't copy&paste anything from him, just read him once again.
By the way, the sections you are trying to delete have their own PNG image or SVN map files. Those images are great efforts of the people, of the Wikipedia users. They'll surely get angry when they will see their images got removed without any serious reason, they spent hours on them. Help them or respect them.
They are almost impossible to maintain.
Yep, you're right! They really are impossible to maintain, now! And they will be, if you will continue removing their sections just because you are not entirely sure who would update them.
I'm not entirely sure who would notice, but it certainly wouldn't be me. Would it be you?
Yes, it would.
If it wouldn't be you, If you won't do, let the others do. Thanks. -- Ozguroot ( talk) 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
My answers were for the user "what a crazy random happenstance".
The "Visa requirements for X passport holders" section in the passports articles is absolutely, totally normal for Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with that. Thats the structure of Wikipedia, depending and varying on the properties of the articles. (As the given examples above.)
Some more examples;
The Article - Sub-Articles/Sections
Poland => List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Poland => List of Poles
PlayStation 1 => List of PlayStation 1 Games
Swedish Passport => List of Visa requirements for Swedish passport holders
"Why isn't there a "date of last update" somewhere in the articles?" A good point. That was what i tried long time ago. I added such a "date of last update" on 'Turkish Passport' article. You can see it in its old revisions. But later i removed it because i was already updating it almost instantly (of course if/when the visa regimes get change).
About getting the changes/updates, I say again; I have my own private/paid account (because of my work). I receive notifications from IATA / ICAO regarding the visa updates/changes.
Okay then, I'll add such a note ('last updated') in all those articles. I'll remove the Delta/Timatic..etc links and try to find the official governmental references/sources for each of them.
We'll solve the problems by talking, not by firstly starting to remove some of the sections, randomly.
There's a saying in Turkish: "İğneyi bulmak için samanlığı yakma." == "Don't burn the whole hayloft to find the needle"
Thanks.
-- Ozguroot ( talk) 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
These tables are most certainly not encyclopaedic. RashersTierney ( talk) 01:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
An example notification text from "Turkish Passport" page;
"Warning: The table is valid only for touristic and/or visiting purposes. Visas for other purposes might have a different implementation. Most of the countries below which are labeled as "not requiring visa", requests a valid return ticket, documents for confirmed accommodation arrangement and evidence of adequate funds to self-support. For your own convenience, please contact with the representative of the country/territory of your destination prior to your departure." -- Ozguroot ( talk) 02:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to find the claimed "consensus" for Blue-Haired Lawyer's deletion-spree. Can't find it here. where is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. They shouldn't be removed.
Also => WP:NLT
And what about the same articles in multiple languages? 'Visas' sections even in different languages. Too many combinations..
As a case in point;
"Serbian Passport" article:
In Serbo-Croatian: http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srpski_paso%C5%A1
In Serbian: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%88
In English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_passport
It seems updating such sections is at least easier than removing them completely.-- Ozguroot ( talk) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose removal. The info should be updated or tagged for update, not removed. Valenciano ( talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)