Talk:Passport/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removal and proposal

With the winding down and admin closure of the poll, as well as its delisting at WP:CENT I have gone ahead and deleted all the visa-free sections. Whilst doing so I was shocked to see what a horrifying state many passport articles are in, quite a few of them had a 'References' section void of any content at all (not even a <references/> tag), and many were filled with inappropriate HTML formatting such as line breaks in a poor attempt at ad hoc {{clr}}-ing. Maybe a passport wikiproject would be a good idea? —what a crazy random happenstance 09:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Such a project is an excellent idea and would give consistency to these closely related articles. It would also provide a convenient location for all relevant discussions and somewhere for eds with specialist knowledge (ie languages/paper ephemera) to help grow these important articles. Lets face it, many of them are pathetic at the moment.. RashersTierney (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Why weren't all regular editors invited to this vote? The vote is null and void really because of the Wikipedia:Canvassing and as you can see in the section above called " Undoing the removal of visa-free information? " there is a great anger (some rightfully so, like Ozguroot who paid subscription so that he could update the article instantly) among the regular editors for what has been done to their work based on that straw poll of few users therefore there is no consensus. As the matter of fact there seem to be more people on the side of keeping the visa free only in the section above then on the side of deletion in the whole poll you organised in secrecy. I can not accept that months and months of work on certain articles be erased because some other articles are of extremely low quality. The idea is not to downgrade good articles to level them with poor articles but to upgrade poor article to level them with good articles. We will not erase the major part of the article on Paris because the article on N'Djamena isn't really of the same quality. So basically, like in all other cases of such behaviour - concentrate on upgrading articles that you find to be of not so good quality instead of concentrating on destroying good articles so that the bad ones wouldn't look so bad. I have nothing against removing unreferenced data from articles like Liechtenstein passport and returning them only when each entry can be referenced but when it comes to carefully written articles, then it's a big no.--Avala (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear! Qwerta369 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody jumped the gun... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, instead of blowing up months of efforts and in some cases even financial efforts of certain users in one click, one should try to update those articles to see how difficult it is, how much more difficult than clicking erase. Also it is quite difficult to understand why would all articles on passports be encompassed, yes they all talk about passports, but just like not all articles on for an example presidents of the USA follow the same fate, not all articles on passports have to be equal. Some of the assumptions in the straw poll were not based on any WP rule, if we followed the idea that the assumption that some article might not get updated means it should be erased we would have at least 75%, if not 80% less articles. For consensus, per rules, it's arguments that count not votes. Someone needs to understand that it's not that easy to reach a consensus that would remove so much information from so many articles.--Avala (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel there has been inappropriate behavior, particularly WP:CANVASS, please provide diffs. Clear consensus has been arrived at for the removal of these sections from national passport articles after extensive debate. Editors who feel otherwise might offer constructive proposals for their inclusion elsewhere, but it would be difficult to make a case that the information contained in these sections could not be more appropriately accessed by simple links to Timatic giving current and accurate information for those who wish to access it. (can eds please indent correctly, it makes following discussion easier)RashersTierney (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Timatic is not the same, because it provides only single country-to-country specific information at once, while on these removed maps one could quickly see the visa statuses for the whole world. That would take some 200 inputs via Timatic system, per country. Tomi566 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RashersTierney, like I said, did you notify regular editors? No. Did you post a notice on all passports talk page? No. Did you stop removing content with "per consensus" once it was clear there was no such consensus? No. So it's a clear issue, the "consensus" is null and void as it was made through a straw poll of a few people and even then the consensus was made per numbering the votes and not arguments as the rules say. Once again, you need to understand that it's not that easy to reach a consensus that would remove so much information from so many articles. You would need strong arguments both for the removal itself and for encompassing all articles with the same fate, neither which we've seen so far and then you would need the qualified community to endorse this, and that didn't happen either.--Avala (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Something like the following should adequetly address that isue;

Undoing the removal of visa-free information?

I am an editor of the Russian passport article and have helped keep the visa-free information there accurate and up-to-date. The discussion about the removal of visa-free information and the bizarre assertion that such information is "unmaintainable" has caught me by surprise. I find it difficult to trust a "consensus" that formed in just 16 days and that did not appear to have involved the editors of most of the passport articles, and I suspect that the debate was concluded too hastily. But maybe I am wrong, and the result of the discussion above really is a broad consensus position. If there are other editors of passport articles who have been keeping visa-free information accurate and current, who have not had a chance to participate in the discussion above, and who have an opinion, please leave a comment here.

My own position is that visa-free information has a place in a Wikipedia article provided that there are editors working to keep it current and provided that it is substantiated with links to reliable sources; the fact that some articles have let their visa-free sections rot is not a reason for deleting it everywhere. Tetromino (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the reversal of the decision to remove the visa-free information from all the Passport articles. The information is relevant and incredibly useful. Why on earth get rid of it? Qwerta369 (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, please revert Visa free info. Rave92^(talk) 12:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the reversal and was surprised to see the information removed from Croatian passport article which I sometimes edit. The information there was even more up-to-date than on the official MFA website. My opinion is that information about visa-free access is fundamental to a passport article. I don't think its unencyclopedic, perhaps you won't find it in Britannica, but Britannica doesn't have over million of articles. Tomi566 (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that all is referenced, at least on Montenegrin Passport page. Rave92^(talk) 12:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I strongly support the reversal of the decision to remove the visa-free information from all the Passport articles. I regularly edit the British passport visa-free travel sections, updating it with the most up to date, sourced information that can sometimes be difficult to find elsewhere, and certainly not all on the same page. I was very upset to log on this morning to find such a useful resource had been wiped. PLEASE bring it back! Qwerta369 (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am an editor of the Romanian passport article and i take care of it. i'm against removal of the visa free section. It is a verry useful information, easy to fing. I'm strongly against the removal. El Otro (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing them! I spent my two years on Turkish passport article. Only for this article, I sent/received countless of e-mails, made phone callings to IATA, to ICAO, to Turkish MFA, I even bought commercial (paid) online "VISA subscription services" only to be notified about the changes, so i could update it instantly. It is ALWAYS UP-TO-DATE! All those efforts.. Hours, days, months.. You can't remove in one click because you want so! Read the comments from the people above. I told you, there will be A LOT OF people who WON'T accept the removal of those sections! Am i really the only one, now? --Ozguroot (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only one, Ozguroot. I, too, think it's quite disgusting that many people's hard work (mine included) is erased 'just like that'. The visa-free sections in the passport articles are incredibly useful. I've read the alleged reasoning behind their removal and I don't agree with any of it. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not oppose the deletion as such, nevertheless the fact that it caught so many people by surprise (myself included) indicates that the discussion was mishandled. Talk pages of all the affected articles should have been notified. — Emil J. 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck!! I spent so much bloody time finding the correct sources that came from Embassies, and Consulates for the Romanian Passport. Someone PUT THE VISA FREE LIST BACK UP WITH MY FUCKING SOURCES AND EVERY COUNTRY THAT WAS MEANT TO BE THERE!!!. I am so angry. Who the hell deleted it off. I am Australian and my bloody Passport section all the Visa Free/VOA is deleted. Since I was born in Australia I have an Australian Passport dammit I need to know this information about Visa Free/VOA as it could update at anytime. I also have an Italian EU Passport as well and that has been deleted as well. This is unacceptable I demand that the Visa Free/VOA (Visa on Arrival) List is placed back on accordingly as well as the valid sources. Someone will have to take responsibility for this vandalism. It was deleted without everyones consent - no one would have likely agreed to the deletion of all the hard work and organization that went into this project. Yes some Passports Visa Free and VOA lists were not valid and should have been removed but seriously not every other Passport whether EU, Australian, Canadian etc should have suffered because of either one or two Passports weren't up to scratch.Pryde 01 (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose removal of the visa-free information from all the Passport articles.
• I strongly support the reversal of the "decision" to remove the visa-free information. The visa-free information is relevant, encyclopedic and useful.

The discussion about the removal of visa-free information, that formed in just 16 days, non-involving most of the editors of the passport articles shouldn't be called - "consensus". Even in this limited discussion, there is no consensus! Gaston28 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support reversal also! I have been taking care of the Costa Rican and Hungarian passport articles, I help to update it everytime there is something new. Im sure there are enough people on the world to take care of the 200 countries there are in the world.--Philip200291 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Links to visa information

Links to visa information for foreign nationals traveling to Ireland

• Irish Department of Foreign Affairs

Links on visa requirements for Irish citizens travelling abroad

Four airline companies currently provide links to IATA's Timatic database which gives a regularly updated synopsis of visa requirements for Irish citizens.

• Delta Air Lines - Link to Timatic
  • Northwest Airlines - Link to Timatic (Delta subsidiary)
• Gulf Air - Link to Timatic
• Star Alliance - Link to Timatic

Please note I am emphatically not proposing the inclusion of this text into Passport articles, but it might provide a starting point for others who feel such links might be usefully included elsewhere in the project. RashersTierney (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't provide as comprehensive information as those maps were. Just by taking a one-second look on one of those maps one could see that, for example citizens of Switzerland don't need visas for EU, UK, USA, and need visas for Russia, China, India etc. It takes ages to achieve that by clicking country-by-country on Timatic. Furthermore, one of the Wikipedia rules is Consensus can change, and now it appears more users are against deletion than for. Tomi566 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact it is more 'comprehensive'. Timatic gives much more detailed info than is typically included in the current one sentence synopsis in these blocks. It is also reliable, unlike the current situation where we can only know if info has been superseded by clicking the Timatic link (if it has been provided). By the mechanism I have outlined, this second opperation is unnecessary. RashersTierney (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If there ever was a consensus on deletion, I believe it's no longer - WP:CCC. One more thing regarding the Timatic. The map and info on Croatian passport page were more accurate than Timatic, because e.g. Timatic claimed for a long time, until recently, that Croatian citizens can visit Austria with ID-card only. This was very wrong and I can provide you links from both Croatian and Austrian government, and you can find in Timatic changelog they had put the info that was never correct. So, Timatic is not an all-knowing solution, per se much better than the removed info was. Tomi566 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How could the map and info be more accurate than Timatic, when the Delta website uses Timatic under a private-label agreement? Was there a different citation other than the Delta website? --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus among whom? Among the few people who had randomly happened to notice this discussion during the 16 days that it was active, or among the people actually involved with the articles? Don't you think the fact that the views of the people actively maintaining the visa-free sections were not represented, and that the strange assertion that visa-free information is always unmaintainable went unchallenged, had from the beginning skewed the result of the debate? Tetromino (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And also RashersTierney, these links don't provide specific country information and it would require 200 clicks to get information you now get on one page of Wikipedia article. Further, you have some fundamental issues with how sourcing works. You can say " It is also reliable, unlike the current situation where we can only know if info has been superseded by clicking the Timatic link" about every single footnote in the world, every single reference on Wikipedia etc. and it makes little sense to me. Yes sometimes information in articles, either WP or elsewhere is outdated, but does that mean we should burn all books and shut down wiki? I'll answer for you - no it doesn't.--Avala (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, it seems you don't care any opinion in here, you just delete again and again. Please stop mass-deleting of the sections. They might be meaningless for you, but keep in mind that they are some very precious contributions and efforts of Wikipedia's editors. Either help the editors to improve those articles, or don't touch them. It's that simple. For example Serbian passport, you delete hundreds of lines by one click. Wikipedia is not that easy, my friend. It is not a delete-what-you-want-when-you-want-for-free website. It neither is a my-ideas-are-the-official-rules website. Please respect the people's effort happening in here. as Avala said; The idea is not to downgrade good articles to level them with poor articles but to upgrade poor article to level them with good articles.--Ozguroot (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not support the deletion of sections about visa-free travel. So many articles would not even contain any content without the visa-free sections! These are articles such as Bruneian passport and Afghan passport. The deletion of visa-free travel sections is simply unfeasible! Bonus bon (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If editors are genuinely interested in these articles, as opposed only to the 'Visa-free blocks' could I take this opportunity to encourage them to develop them. Arguing that the articles would otherwise have no merit (without content which is peripheral to the subject) is anything but convincing. Alternatively, consider their inclusion elsewhere. RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point, RashersTierney, in fact the visa-free info doesn't really belong here in Wikipedia, since WP is not a travel guide. The place/site where it belongs is at Wikitravel. I know wikitravel is not as widely read, or edited as much as WP, nor is it as "prestigious", but it deserves some attention. In fact, the Iran article on wikitravel has a section on "Getting into the country", but the info hasn't been updated since 2006. See: http://wikitravel.org/en/Iran#Get_in. This is where the visa free info, charts and maps belong. Certainly the passport articles here in WP need to be developed with encyclopedic info, and not just maps and charts, which as of the archived discussion above, should be deleted and/or moved to the concurrent wikitravel articles. Then, they would be useful and applicable. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I know wikitravel is not part of Wikimedia, but it still would be a better web portal for the info on "Entry Requirements" than a Wikipedia article would be. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Bonus bon. After your "contribution" to Mongolian passport article, there was ONLY a single line left on the page; "The Mongolian passport is issued to citizens of Mongolia for international travel." Nothing else. The article had been become totally an empty useless garbage. Do you really think people would like to type "Mongolian passport" on Wikipedia only to see it is issued to citizens of Mongolia., and nothing else? That's something they already know, i guess.:-) --Ozguroot (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If RashersTierney would want to do this properly, he would need strong arguments both for the removal of such huge amount of content itself and for encompassing all articles with the same fate, neither which we've seen so far and then he would need the qualified community to endorse this, and that is not happening either. Your "encourage them to develop them" line is cynical, who will have motive to develop articles if tomorrow someone might find that useless and delete it in a single click? I asked for an apology, but for the time being, RashersTierney, respecting huge contribution of other editors will be enough.--Avala (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly implied that I have engaged in canvassing (still no diffs) and simultaneously criticized me for not canvassing. You clearly do not understand WP:CANVASS. RashersTierney (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ozguroot, your edit warring is inappropriate. The discussion has resulted in a community consensus to remove the sections. Just because you waffled on for pages and pages doesn't mean there is any more of you, nor do your arguments become stronger with quantity. Most editors have agreed they be removed, and and administrator has closed the vote with that in mind. It was widely publicised, ignorance is no excuse as they often say. Do NOT revert the administrator-approved consensus again. Instead, come here and debate. With the removal of the visa-free sections all that has been done is to expose the pathetic conditions that have already existed. An article with one sentence is still an article with one sentence, no matter how much outdated table data follows it. We're here to build an encyclopaedia - document the passport. Not make judgements and compile irrelevant data. Visa policy does not equal passport information. Visa-free sections are WP:OR, and do not belong on an encyclopaedia. —what a crazy random happenstance 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants Mongolian passport to look better, then please feel free to add more information about the passport. Visa regulations in random countries are neither a function nor a property of passports issued by other countries, which simply makes this information off-topic there. Apart from that, this data is much too volatile to be of encyclopedic value, and in case nobody has mentioned it yet: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Latebird (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Very much so. Also, Ozguroot, you should note that consensus need not be unanimous. Just because one or two editors disagree is no reason to go on a reverting spree - twice. There has been a well-publicised poll on the issue, and the majority have spoken. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but we're damn close. —what a crazy random happenstance 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

One or two? There is something seriously wrong with your arithmetic. By my count, so far 9 editors have spoken up against this removal. There is no consensus for your point of view. Tetromino (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, ahem. —what a crazy random happenstance 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read any of what we wrote? Anything at all? Apparently not, but maybe you should so you can find out why this "consensus" was actually a canvassed straw poll and is thus null and void. There has not been a well-publicised poll on the issue, and the majority has not spoken in favor of anything. And yes, consensus does need not be unanimous, it's arguments that count and not votes and as I can see here as soon as you established a "consensus" among a few random users and even then by numbers and not arguments - you got a dozen of users who had no idea about the poll and who are actually not random but regular editors and who disagree. Once again you would need strong arguments both for the removal itself and for encompassing all articles with the same fate, neither which we've seen so far and then you would need the qualified community to endorse this, and that didn't happen either. The "consensus" you are pointing at was swiftly changed as soon as regular editors found out about it - ahem, ahem, ahem. So please accept that there is no valid consensus to change 200 articles at this point and that the consensus is to keep the information.--Avala (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS, you do not understand it. It is not permitted to spam talk pages, or users. That is against the rules. It is called canvassing. I did not canvass. Like I say below - this vote was held at WP:Village Pump (proposals) and publicised on WP:Centralised discussion. It is impossible to publicise a vote more - any vote, no matter how important. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How can this possibly be WP:OR?? Relevant sources have been provided, they were depicted in a map, just like in the case of "Countries currently issuing biometric passports". There was nothing scientifically new, no personal thoughts or positions, nothing that can't be found elsewhere in strong reliable sources. Tomi566 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my bad, meant to call them a violation of WP:NOT. Good on you for catching it. —what a crazy random happenstance 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The info may very well be a form of OR, see: WP:SYN. Also, the charts and map use only one source, the Delta private label Timatic website. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

the charts and map use only one source — which maps? Have you looked at all the passport articles? The Russian passport article, for example, cites numerous sources in the mainstream media for its visa-free section. Tetromino (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What voting? Which vote? When? Avala keeps asking some serious questions but you're insisting to escape, still insisting to not answer him. Well, i'll also ask; Did you notify the editors of those articles about the voting? No. Before voting? No. During the voting? No. After voting? No. Did you let them know about the discuss, -before deleting the sections-? No. (i'm very sure that sending a short notification message to the editors would be easier for you, than removing those sections from ALL the passports) A simple notice at least on all passports talk page? No. Then, what vote are you talking about? You gathered a few Wikipedia users/viewers maybe "supporters" of you who didn't do any contribution for those sections, and done the voting? That must be a bad joke. No, we will not allow a "fait accompli" in here. We will not allow a "Done and Good-bye!" here. By the way, I'm still waiting for your answers. Read the talk page again.

You said; They are unencyclopaedic. Yes, we can fit in more than the average encyclopaedia, but that doesn't mean we have to, nor that we should. For the same reason we don't list TV schedules we shouldn't need to list this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_United_States_network_television_schedule —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozguroot (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:CANVASS. This vote was on WP:Centralised discussion - it is not even possible to publicise a vote more. PS: TV guides were removed after much discussion from television station articles and are now deleted on sight. —what a crazy random happenstance 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Turkish Passport" listing under 'Asia'

I noticed that the Turkish Passport link in the Passport Box at the bottom of the Passport article is placed under Asia. It may be more appropriate for it to be placed under Europe rather than Asia. Although the country is geographically located in both Europe and Asia, passports are political documents and Turkey is a candidate country for membership to the European Union. It may be more approproate for it to be placed under Europe rather than Asia. Please share your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck02 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it is stated somewhere on the Turkish Passport itself (highly unlikely), I don't see why it should be included at that article either way. In any case, such a specific issue should be decided at Talk:Turkish passport. RashersTierney (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In a lengthy discussion on Template talk:Passports we decided to follow the United Nations geoscheme for the sake of neutrality, there are many nations with ambiguous placements and this was a way to keep it WP:NPOV. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

new "timatic" template

I have added a {{timatic}} template to the Mongolian passport page with an attempt to compress the longer links deep within the Delta Airlines TimaticWeb site into shorter ones that have some meaning, with the goal to be less fragile should Delta change URL structure or should Wikipedia reference some alternative provider or providers. So far it's helped me find one broken link of the dozen I checked, so I think it's worthwhile. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Seb az86556 has gone on a WP:POINT-violating rampage and has put up the Mongolian passport page along with dozens of others for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolian passport. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal: Separate "passport" content from "visa-free travel" to separate articles

because of the edit wars raging around "Removing the "visa-free travel" blocks in passport articles", which are going on now in Talk:Passport plus Russian passport, Mongolian passport, and several others;

suggest to create two separate sets of national articles;

one which is Country passport, which describes the passport itself, its history and use, and anything encyclopedic about it;

a second Visa free travel from Country article, which pulls out the "visa-free travel" section being deleted out of the passport articles, and preserves it in its own space.

The two would of course be connected together appropriately with cross links.

Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved this here, hope you don't mind. This discussion was already moved from VP(p) earlier, and it is better to hold it in one place. This proposal has the same problems as the sections being included on the passport pages themselves, many of which were outlined above. We already have Visa_policy_of_Canada style articles, why not simply expand and update those? Whilst the visa policy of hundreds of nations is difficult to cross reference across hundreds of articles, the visa policy of one nation is usually very easily accessible. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do mind, but never mind. The degree of difficulty here is in maintaining about 50,000 separate items of information (200-odd countries, squared). Both sets of pages are valuable; the Visa policy of Canada page lets you see at a glance who can visit easily, but the corresponding Visa free travel from Canada page gives you as a Canadian passport holder some sense of your freedom to travel. So they are different enough that you would want a comprehensive encyclopedia to include them both. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, consensus above has deemed that these sections ought to be removed. A good number of arguments have been raised to remove these sections, by a good number of editors. Difficulty of maintenance. Unencyclopaedic nature. Appearance of legal advice. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. And others. It was agreed they should go, and so they went. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I see no signs of consensus from the dozens of diligent editors who maintained those pages and were blindsided by their removal without so much as a notice on the corresponding talk pages of the articles affected. It was agreed? WP:WEASEL Edward Vielmetti (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The vote was publicised on WP:Centralised discussion and held on WP:Village pump (proposals). That is the most any proposal, no matter how large, can ever be promoted on Wikipedia - please read the 'Canvassing' guideline. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to sign what Edward Vielmetti said here. It sums it up really well in one sentence - there is no consensus (if anywhere it's on the keep side by now) and there was no publication of the poll.--Avala (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it's a none sense to remove Visa Free section from passport page, no matter is that separate article or deleting. As you saw, a lot of people do their best to update it. Also, it's not like the visa regime changes every day that it is hard to keep up with updates.Rave92^(talk) 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think their efforts would have been better directed had they updated the information on the passport itself? The Yemeni passport page exists to document the Yemeni passport, yet absolutely no effort has been directed into writing about the passport - it has all been squandered on documenting the visa policy of 200 other countries. Visa policy doesn't change every day, but there are literally tens of thousands (about 40,000) of combinations of different nations. Even if it changes once every ten years, that is 4,000 changes a year, or about 11 a day. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you come up with that math? 11 changes a day? Seriously...Can't you two that can't accept the consensus, Happenstance and RashersTierney, put your time on Wikipedia to a better use? Are you content with everything else on Wikipedia but the visa-free sections in passport articles are destroying the happiness so you have to go all the way down to supporting apparent canvassing, packing up 200 articles to same fate against all rules, edit warring even...I mean is it really worth it? Wouldn't you feel better if you actually upgraded some article by adding content rather than attempting to upgrade articles by erasing months of work by other editors? Think about it please...--Avala (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a very frequent contributor to passport articles, which is why I saw the problems associated with the visa-free sections. Many articles never had them, or local consensus agreed to delete them (Talk:Irish passport). Hard work is admirable, but it is not criteria for inclusion. PS: For the millionth time, please read WP:CANVASS. Please. I beg you. You appear to have no idea what it means. PS2: You appeared to be perfectly content to edit war here and here. For the record, the poll was closed by an administrator and the only canvassing was done by Ozguroot (talk · contribs) (against the removal), who is now being debated as a possible sock-puppet of an indef blocked user on the Admin Noticeboard. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They're (Happenstance and RashersTierney) actually either the same user or some close friends supporting each other, so they can do whatever they want together. One of the Administrator says, "I did not block Happenstance for edit warring as he did not try to revert Ozguroot." oh, he did not revert but RashersTierney did. They complete each other. I really don't mind the ban. All what i did was reverting the deletion a bit earlier than the editors of those articles. see: Romanian passport reverted by El Otro. Mongolian passport reverted by Edward Vielmetti, Serbian passport reverted by Avala, Are they socks too? Now they call me "a sock" of the banned User:Izmir lee. Who is Izmir lee? I totally have no idea. Happenstance said; "There are about 40,000 of combinations of different nations." I actually did not understand that. Could you explain it please? --Ozguroot (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please try to respond in chronological order. I have never met RashersTierney in my life, and do not remember interacting with him on Wikipedia before this discussion - feel free to check my contributions. If we assume there are 200 nations, then every single combination (China-Portugal, Portugal-China, USA-China, China-USA, Ireland-Maldives) of every single nation will add up to 40,000 different pieces of separate visa policy which need to be sourced and kept up to date. If a nation changes its policy towards another nation once every ten years, then there are 4000 changes a year, or 11 a day. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of socking belong elsewhere. For what its worth, I don't believe Ozguroot is one, but the possibility was raised by an admin following his revert spree. RashersTierney (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting those articles Romanian passport, Serbian passport instantly again after reading my message, WILL NOT HELP YOU, Happenstance. You don't care what i say. You don't care what those editors say. That's really a big problem. Please respect our opinions and discuss the matter. INSTEAD OF DELETING WHAT YOU WANT. You invite those editors here to 'talk' but you still keep deleting the sections. I really don't understand that. Also, you said that; there is a conflict which needs to be solved with words. but we will not solve with words never if you will keep deleting them. You're having a PERFECT contradiction here! --Ozguroot (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus as it currently stands indicates that these sections should be removed. That consensus is not overturned by simply reverting and restoring the sections. All articles should conform to current consensus, and thus all should be free of the visa-free sections. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and this is the last I'll stick my nose into this debate), I find "visa-free travel from..." to be both entirely encyclopedic and (unlike most encyclopedic things) quite useful. Having it out of the passport articles makes sense, since the connection is fairly tenuous ("Well, er, you'd also need a passport to travel between these countries . . . uh, mostly . . ."). I saw a couple of these articles appear on Special:Newpages and dropped by Edward Vielmetti's talk page to say nice work. As to the remark above, well, lots of crap changes every day. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't come with a guarantee that it's up-to-the-minute.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The information remains unencyclopaedic, and there were other concerns, notably WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose removal of the visa-free information from all the Passport articles.
• I strongly support the reversal of the "decision" to remove the visa-free information. The visa-free information is relevant, encyclopedic and useful.

The discussion about the removal of visa-free information, that formed in just 16 days, non-involving most of the editors of the passport articles shouldn't be called - "consensus". Even in this limited discussion, there is no consensus! Gaston28 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikitravel proposal

Why not recreate the tables on Wikitravel? As I understand it they are not copyrighted, so the Wikipedia-Wikitravel licence incompatibility should not come into play. They'd be perfectly suited for Wikitravel, and they are perfectly unsuitable here. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We could talk this before your MASS-DELETION ATTACK, right? --Ozguroot (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two or three articles are hardly a "mass-deletion attack". Sounds like something out of Pokemon. No, I am interested in debating this now. Would this be an acceptable compromise to you? If not - why? —what a crazy random happenstance 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It would still mean they are deleted from Wikipedia, which is as I see, something that many more oppose than support. This just derails the main debate going on above. Tomi566 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A debate without an end is just a squabble, the above discussion eventually has to lead somewhere; that is the reason we are now discussing proposals. What I have seen is a clear majority of editors agreeing they are not suitable for inclusion on passport pages, with only a few (if vocal) dissents. The issue now is whether they should be deleted from Wikipedia entirely, or moved into some sort of other visa policy page. I personally think they should be removed altogether, and I have no issue with them being relocated to Wikitravel where they would find a good home. It is very frequent to move unencyclopaedic content to more appropriate projects - wiktionary, wikibooks, etc. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two or three articles? Let's be serious You've MORE THAN 250 DELETIONS there. AMAZING! Those sections are perfectly valid, legal and useful for here. Try to count the opposite users here. It won't be a hard math. The articles already do have every necessary WARNINGs. I'd like to quote: If wikipedia cannot be held liable for somebody's dying of a heart-attack or stroke due to the "medical advice" found on this site, then I don't think we have to worry about someone's getting stopped at some border or airport, either. said an another editor. I am not willing to throw my efforts. You don't have any idea how hardly i built that list.

"FROM : LEGAL AND CONSULAR BUREA "ghmfa00" <ghmfa00@ghana.com> TO  : OZGUR REF  : LE/REQ

THE MINISTRY ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF YOUR EMAIL DATED 16TH FEBRUARY, 2009 ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT AND WISHES TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU CAN TAKE THE VISA ON ARRIVAL AT THE KOTOKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. WARM REGARDS.".

Sending e-mails even to African governments, ONLY TO CHECK and TO VERIFY the validity of the sources in a Wikipedia article, is more than an effort, Happenstance. To remove by a single click? No, thanks. --Ozguroot (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Those edits predate this section, and were in response to your mass reverts. When you began reverting me for a second time, I did not revert back, as that would be edit warring, and instead asked you to stop - which you didn't, resulting in a justified block. Whilst your efforts were admirable, they were not necessary. Your effort would have been better spent had you instead contributed to actually improving our documentation of the passports themselves. I do not think your edits should be lost - please have a look at Wikitravel. It is a very high traffic website and I am sure they would love to have visa-free sections. If you do not respect that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information you are entirely at liberty to take your efforts there. PS: Please stop breaking the formatting of this discussion, it renders it difficult to follow. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the above is a serious violation of our original research policy. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Whilst your efforts were admirable, they were not necessary <-- For who? They were not necessary for YOU. I agree that. But what about the others? I am sorry but we cannot delete the Ascorbic_Acid#Ascorbic_acid_synthesis_in_non-primates section because it is not necessary for you. --Ozguroot (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A vote was held, and widely publicised, and a consensus has been established above, by an administrator, to remove the sections. You have just admitted that most of your hard work is in fact original research, which is against one of our strongest policies. If anything, you've made a good case for why they ought to be removed. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edward is now moving many of the visa-free sections into separate articles, as he suggested above. This discussion appears to be increasingly moot, as editors are implementing ad hoc solutions left, right and centre. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. You should AT LEAST check/verify an information you're 'embedding' into an article here, right? (citation, ref.etc) And you look that from its base source, right? Let's say the most valid source possible, if you like. You don't want to ask/know about a side effect of a medicine from a musician, instead, you go to a doctor. --Ozguroot (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he didn't publish those emails he was sending. They were used only for checking purposes of other external sources - so that is not original research. And even if it were, it was used probably only on Turkish passport page. No reason to delete other passport pages. Tomi566 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that the information is intrinsically unreliable, but only a fool would rely on it. RashersTierney (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I dont think that, but maybe he does and that is why he sends emails. But that is his problem, and it really didn't affect the sources. Furthermore, it certainly did not affect e.g. Croatian passport page, because none of the references there were his emails. Tomi566 (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But, you don't then publish what you think the doctor said and claim it as medical advice. That is what you have done - you have written an encyclopaedia based on email exchanges with the Ghanan foreign ministry. That is not admirable, that is frightful. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not write an encyclopaedia based on emails from Ghanaian MFA. I was in a doubt about the VOA facility of Ghana, and i wanted to check whether the information in the column is true or not. You just look forward to catch a mistake here. Now, that is everything but not contribution. --Ozguroot (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone as blindly infatuated with visa-free sections as you are is in doubt about the veracity of the very sources you use, how can we possibly rely on them and expect others to do so? How can we present them as authoritative if even you suspect they may be wrong? This goes against our reliable sources guideline. The problems with these sections are mounting. You still haven't answered why these sections can't be migrated to Wikitravel. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of applauding him for double-checking you are accusing him because he was being meticulous. I may doubt that Accurate News and Information Act, today's FA, was passed in 1937 so I can go and check this somewhere. Do you think that by act of checking this information I have irrevocably stepped on path of deleting this article because there was some doubt included?--Avala (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Finalised proposal to fork articles

After a few rounds of edits and feedback, here's a restated structure.

For each country Country, there should be 3 articles:

• Country passport - describing physical characteristics of passport, how to get one, other items in most passport articles now
• Visa policy of Country - describing policies regarding receiving visas to *enter* Country, a la existing Visa policy of Canada as a best example
• Visa free travel for Country citizens - describing policies affecting those who hold a Country passport upon entering another country, a la Visa requirements for Turkish citizens as a good example.

My first pass at this created a set of "visa free travel" pages with probably not perfect names, since one of the things you might want to talk about in that is other kinds of passport controls faced that are not free; the corresponding suggestion was Visa requirements for Country citizens, a la the Visa requirements for Turkish citizens article is underway.

The contentious "visa free travel" section that caused 250 edit wars will be pulled to its own page, its own category, and reviewed and sourced and improved accordingly.

The Visa policy of Country pages will be suitable cross-references from the Visa requirements for Country citizens, so that if you are from Benin and need to know if the details on your page about travel to Peru are still up to date you can be 2 clicks away from an original, authoritative source if one exists. There are about 10 of those now; we just need 240 more.

To do this right we need to be prepared to create and cross-link 500 new pages, so it might take some time; but it's better than, say, spending that time with edit wars.

Edward Vielmetti (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) - changed "nationals" to "citizens"

I would accede to this compromise, only change the word nationals to citizens (there is a difference in some nations - eg. USA). I will be closely scrutinising the visa-free travel articles, and if I suspect that the same problems are simply continuing in a new location, I will not hesitate to reopen this debate. I am cautiously optimistic, as tight cross-referencing may solve the sourcing problems, and I like the 'date quickly' tag, it should become universal on those type of pages, perhaps with a custom version just for visa articles. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work Edward. With the reservations I have already expressed, I support this initiative. RashersTierney (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"I would accede to this compromise, only change the word nationals to citizens" <-- I agree with you. The word "citizens" is much more appropriate than "nationals". That was my mistake. --Ozguroot (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurrah! Would anyone object if I close discussion above for archival purposes? All further discussion should be here or in new sections, and it should be primarily about this proposal rather than the previous dispute. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree creating such separated pages for them. But I have no idea what would the other editors say; Qwerta369, Avala, El Otro, Pryde 01, Tetromino, Tomi566 etc. --Ozguroot (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus need not be unanimous, and even before this compromise it was obvious that these sections will not continue to exist on passport articles in their present form. If any of those editors has an issue with the proposal they can raise it here, rather than resurrecting a discussion the rest of us have progressed from. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of repeating the same mistake again, this time we should drop a notification note on their page before doing so. So they'd get notified about the possible changes. --Ozguroot (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm. If any of those editors disagree, discussion can continue here or in a new section. It should be kept largely chronological. But as a good-faith gesture I've undone the close. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I'd rather see Visa-free info where it originally was, I'd accept this compromise. And I agree that the term "citizens" should be used instead of "nationals" Tomi566 (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edited proposal summary to replace "Nationals" with "Citizens" to match consensus and evolving reality. We still need a good category for these new articles, and probably an infobox at the bottom to link them all together and a distinctive warning box at the top to reflect the necessity to evolve content to match changing national policy. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edward, thanks for the new category. But would you agree "Visa requirements for Countries" as the new name? Sounds more official than "Visa free travel", imho. --Ozguroot (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that sounds clumsy, keep the visa-free cat name, and use {{DEFAULTSORT}} to sort according to country name. If we're going ahead with a footer template may I suggest that it just be one for each continent? Like {{Flags of Europe}}, not like {{Passports}}? We can dual-list nations and avoid nationalistic disputes. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a good compromise, but the subject is too small for a special page. The information (in that page) are important, but few. Someone, in the future, will delete the article for this reason. El Otro (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone, in the future, will delete the article for this reason. <-- True. --Ozguroot (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between this and this? There is no reason why they ought to be deleted, as long as they are properly managed, well-referenced and not neglected. We have far stranger articles that go undeleted. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If this will stop all the mess then OK. As for using this to then delete the supplemental article - anyone can propose merge which is always to be used before deletion.--Avala (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the edit warring is not good, and a waste of everyone's time. The three separate pages that Edward is talking about above sounds like a good idea. My only concern is that "Timatic" is the only source for the charts/maps; there should also be citations for the "Entry requirements" pages from each of the countries' consulate website and/or foreign affairs website (wherever the info is actually located). Additionally, adding the info to wikitravel is also a good idea. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Implementing Edward's compromise agreement

We have finally arrived at a mechanism to put this issue to bed. Edward's proposal was accepted all round as a way to move on, but it must be applied as agreed. These edits to Serbian passport is not what we agreed. Does consensus mean nothing around here? Assuming good faith that there was a genuiine misunderstanding, I have asked the posting editor to self-revert. RashersTierney (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, the mini-map plus a link to the main page looks like a reasonable way to do this; how is this wrong? If anything I'd even expand it to add a one sentence (but no more) "Citizens of X can visit nn countries (link to page) (mini-map)". It doesn't require constant edits to the main Passport page. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with that edit. Let's not get stuck on a little tiny icony map, please. --Ozguroot (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The map relates to visa requirements, which we agreed should not be part of national passport articles. Your proposal, which I backed, was for a minimum number of links to be made in text. RashersTierney (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is how supplemental articles are linked to on Wikipedia. Everywhere. In each article that is how we link to the article that is supplemental and the supplemental article has the template which links back to the first article. See in this article - Passport#Limitations_on_passport_use above each section there is a linking template and a bit of text or a photo. As for this not being what we agreed on, I don't see that it anywhere says that we've reached that the articles should not be linked to, made into orphans or alternatively buried in the see also section among related and not supplemental articles. I can't believe you are so intensively fighting this, and against the community that was so kind (or bored with your reverts) to make a compromise with you, I can't understand why are you going at these lengths to pick yet another fight, over an issue so trivial, just after we somehow settled the previous one? I don't get it really. Don't you see how much anger you caused already? Why do you want to mount more of it? What do you think how will people who accepted to compromise with you react if you continue your quest to remove every trace of their hard work on visa-free information? Can't you just accept that we've reached a compromise and not pick yet another fight? --Avala (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree less with you Avala! 195.195.166.31 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Avala. Things are getting boring here. EVERYTHING what i wrote here, they absolutely opposed all of them. There is only one "true" here = HIDE/BURY/DELETE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN! I did accepted some mistakes from my part, they did not accept anything. There's nothing to write more here it seems. If it'll continue like that, i'll do what i know as "true", just like the others. What is so hard to understand? The editors of those articles DON'T WANT what YOU want! Here comes an another one more opposite editor; User:Philip200291, the editor of Costa Rican passport & Hungarian passport articles. Read what he just wrote here. I told at the very beginning, it's not only me. Opposite people will appear from everywhere if you'll delete those sections. I'm afraid that "'a lot of people' is only you" is not true anymore. Anyway. I never got bothered that much before only because i contribute Wikipedia articles! --Ozguroot (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The mini-map is a major improvement, and even though it's not just "text", I don't see a problem with including it in the passport articles. Don't forget, our society is so "picture-oriented" these days. So I think continuing to argue about it is just "splitting hairs". Let's get this over with, please!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not about splitting hairs. You are correct. Graphics have a disproportionate impact compared with text. It was a major reason given at the initial proposal for the removal of these peripheral images from the passport pages. The agreement was that 2 new articles would exclusively address the question of visa requirements. The inclusion of these maps at the only tangentially-related Passport pages seems mainly for decorative purposes and relevant to a different subject - namely visa requirements. RashersTierney (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand your point. Thanks for the clarification, it makes more sense now that the charts/maps don't belong on the passport pages, but should be included in the other "new" types of visa req. pages. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The visa-free map on passport articles is entirely unacceptable to me, and is not in the spirit of the compromise. Whilst I still have a problem with visa-free pages, getting this garbage off the passport pages was the only reason I agreed to this compromise. My support is contingent on them not being re-added. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help provide a checklist of what you *do* want on passport pages in the section below; it's easier to make systematic improvements by accretion than deletion. Since we don't yet have a manual of style for individual country passport pages, including suggestions on where to source difficult to find details, it behooves you to provide support to the project by being constructive in this regard. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor has raised concerns re. the histories of the 'nominal' passport articles being lost by cut-and-paste moves. These articles were nominates for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolian passport. When that distraction is resolved, could they be 'moved' to 'Visa requirements for X citizens' and the 'X passport' articles (essentially the line X passports are issued to the citizens of X for the purpose of international travel., be started from scratch? Just passing on the doubts. RashersTierney (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor that raised the "we are deleting the history of the article" opposition is correct. I do not know if Wikipedia has an internal mechanism that effectively forks an article, giving each of two articles all of the history of the original but with two names. That would have been a much, much, much, much, much better way to do it; but, alas, I don't know if this is possible to do. Losing the history of the passport requirements is a grave loss, perhaps more so than losing the edit trail of the passport article itself. At this point I'm about ready to invoke WP:WETRIEDOURBEST, but if there's a better technical way, let's do that. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its too difficult for the 'shell' articles (Mongolian passport et al). Just move the entire Passport article to the new destination - 'Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens'. The new Mongolian passport article can be 'resurrected' later. On the substantial passport articles such as 'US passport', I don't think there's much to be done. These visa sections should have been their own articles from the beginning rather than coat racked. Perhaps we should call in some expert advice who could solve our dilemma. Nil desperandum. p.s Help:Moving a pageRashersTierney (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rashers. I see Help:Moving_a_page#Fixing_cut_and_paste_moves as the possible next rescue phase for each of these; it looks tedious, so perhaps someone with mad Mediawiki skillz can help out so that we preserve edit history for the article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the "visa requirements for x" maps on one page

The page Category:Visa free travel now has a nicely growing (15) set of maps that have been categorized out of the maps that had been in the Passport pages before they were cut out of them. Efforts to add that category to additional maps would be welcomed.

It ends up being a really useful and helpful effect to see the whole collection at a glance, since you can pretty clearly see different visa policies between countries. There may be a more effective page layout for those maps that creates a better effect with less unnecessary white space.

The edit history of those maps ends up being a useful part of this discussion as well, noting the careful changes that are going on to update them regularly, and noting the relatively small number of editors who make those changes.

Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work, but please use {{DEFAULTSORT}} to list them under their correct country names, like I suggested above. As it is, they're all under V. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We are up to 25 "Visa requirements" pages, and 47 corresponding maps. Missing as of this writing include Visa requirements for South Korean citizens, Visa requirements for Thai citizens, and others. There may be some "Visa requirements" pages that are not categorized. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

29 pages, 58 maps. Just working through the list. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

41 pages, 66 maps. Thanks to all of the editors who are assisting in this portion of the project. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, please don't use DEFAULTSORT; we only sort by country name in Category:Visa free travel, not in the other categories that the article belongs to. I recommend the following markup for categories for visa requirements articles:
[[Category:Visa free travel|Country name]]
[[Category:Foreign relations of Country name]]
(replace "Country name" with the appropriate versions of the country's name). --Tetromino (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tetromino, that looks like the right categories; I think the maps could go onto the "foreign relations" category as well. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

75 pages, 67 maps. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

81 pages, 72 maps. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a request to rescue and merge the various information for Chinese residents who hold passports of Macau and Hong Kong. I'm not convinced that I can do this accurately, so if someone in this project has the detail orientation necessary to do this rescue I'd appreciate it. From my talk page

Hi Edward. I have added a subheading at the top of the article Visa requirements for Chinese citizens concerning the different visa requirements for Chinese citizens who have the right of abode in Mainland China, Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR. Would you be able to transfer the former content from visa-free travel section of the Hong Kong SAR passport and Macau SAR passport articles to the linked articles in the subheading of Visa requirements for Chinese citizens please? Many thanks Bonus bon (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Checklist for elements of a good passport page

Sigh. You go to write a compromise, and people keep fighting the old battles (while you go and try to recreate the bits that were damaged).

Before we go to decide which elements of the page should or should not be on a mythical "perfect" passport page, I'd like to see an inventory of the page elements that *are* on a passport page, so that someone faced with a blank page like Haitian passport could get some idea of what they might look for.

Care to start, please? Section and element names would be good. I'm thinking things like pictures of the cover and inside pages are easy, a narrative about getting one, some history, any controversy. But help me out - I want to make Haitian passport better (because heaven help you if you own one). What do I do? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Finally the beginning of a Passport MOS. Please don't think your efforts are not sufficiently appreciated. You have done much to move this dispute on, as I have said previously. Do you mind if we take some time over this? Perhaps get some specific help on putting a manual of style together? RashersTierney (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Edward, for trying to get this matter resolved. And yes, choosing a passport page to edit and improve, like the Haitian one, or Eritrean passport, which is currently marked for AfD, would be a good start. Some of the energy that has gone into debating the issues needs to be put to work in a positive way to improve the articles that are sorely lacking. However, I don't know how to find sources for the information that needs to be in the articles, other than googling the subject. Anyone know of any sources? --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

When doing related research a couple of years ago,I came on a ref. to a paper database intended to be used by immigration officials. (Lever-arch type to be updated regularly) As far as I recall it was to be used to verify the authenticity of various foreign passports at border points. I remember that it was hugely expensive (order of $ 1000) but I don't recall its title or publisher. It was the only publication I ever came across that appeared to deal with 'all' contemporary passports in a comprehensive way. Don't know if that rings a bell with anyone. Sources on non English-speaking countries' passports are thin on the ground, which is why many of the articles were not developed. RashersTierney (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some looking and found a few products [1] but also a lot of sketchy stuff. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should particularly restrict passport articles with a grand guideline or anything, though stylistic recommendations would not go astray. As a bare minimum I suggest photos of the cover and data page, as well as a description (and translation, if applicable) of both (including all data fields). Additionally, we could have photos of the first inside page, a transcription and translation of the passport note, a history section, historical photos or scans, documentation on the different types of passports - to whom they are issued and why, any unique features and any relevant passport issuing policy of the nation in question. I would like to suggest Australian passport as the prototype here, because I believe it is in a format well-suited to any sort of other passport, whether Togolese or British. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Those all sound reasonable. I find myself sourcing also things like where you can go to get a passport replaced, who issues them (so you get a link back to the issuing authority and thus authoritative information), the cost of the passport, and other largely pragmatic things. It's also helpful in many cases to mention in some detail just what kind of travel freedom this document brings - e.g. the note on Haitian passport that should say it gets you hardly anywhere - and any notable cases of forgery or false documents. My preference would be to have the history at the bottom, not the top, so that the stuff above the fold answers the question "oh shit I need to replace my passport what do I do" rather than "what did that passport look like in 1934". Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We are here to document the passport in an encyclopaedic fashion, not act as a governmental information portal. If someone wants to write a how-to on renewing passports it belongs on Wikibooks, it is out of our project scope as an encyclopaedia. When you come to an encyclopaedia to read about a passport, stuff like what it looked like 1934 is exactly what you're after, not a guide on renewing it. I also don't think we can put the 'Haitian passports are useless' thing on there, I see it as a violation of WP:SYN. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK per previous section we have reached a consensus to include:

• the link for the Visa requirements for ... article (instead of making it an orphan article) which is by wiki rules done through supplemental article template and section heading with possibly thumbnail of an image which is also previously why the compromise was reached with two users that wanted to erase every trace of this from Wikipedia and opposed by about 12 other regular users.

I think that we also need to include

• history (if applicable)
• passport design and technical specs
• types and issuing

And I think we need a consensus that will say that

• these are article guidelines, something we are aiming for but if there are specifics for some article (Israeli passport or Kosovo passport) they not only should be but must be added to the article even though there is no list in guideline that mentions entry refusal or passport recognition as an issue to be covered. Other things are passport messages, page drawings, second passport, specific agreements regarding non-nationals etc.

Can we reach a consensus on these as well?--Avala (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No. A section header + map is unacceptable for a myriad of reasons, and your points are obviously biased. Unless you're willing to cast your prejudices aside, I don't see this going anywhere. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable to you doesn't equal unacceptable to the community. If you continue violating the fragile compromise consensus we will have to declare it non existent and go to the previous consensus which means full reinserting of the visa free section to the passport article. Now if that's what you want, go ahead and violate the consensus.--Avala (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, the previous consensus, as approved by an administrator, was to delete the sections entirely. This compromise is based on good-faith and you are obviously acting against the spirit within which it was reached. The map is unacceptable. It goes against the manual of style to have sections void of content, and the map is irrelevant to the passport article. If you are unable to accede to the compromise, it is you who will be the lone editor left out in the cold. The rest of us want this compromise to work, and this compromise was reached only under the assumption that ALL this crap will be gone from the passport articles (as was demonstrated on the Turkish passport/Visa requirements for Turkish citizens articles). You appear to be having a WP:OWN issue here. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Approved by administrator? Where is that in rules? Admin just closed the discussion and that is his job per rules, he didn't endorse it nor it would make any difference. He closed it per what was there, however because the discussion was canvassed the consensus was gone the very next day - per WP:CCC. I suggest you read WP:CCC, yes WP:CCC, please click on it. I don't how else to make you read that consensus has changed, I am getting desperate so that is why I posted it three times. I wouldn't be going pointy if you actually bothered to read what we write several thousand words before.--Avala (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally fully agree with Avala on "If you continue violating the fragile compromise consensus we will have to declare it non existent and go to the previous consensus which means full reinserting of the visa free section to the passport article". No he is not having any WP:OWN issue here. Stop giving here randomly policy pages that you've never read so you could show you know a lot! I really really wonder; What is your problem with us, and with those articles, Happenstance? You call the whole bunch of effort "CRAP" & "garbage". Actually you violated too many policies such as : WP:Assume_good_faith. Is that how you contribute and/or respect to Wikipedia? Don't forget, actually we are cleaning your own CR4P. So, help us now. How many articles did you create for solving-the-problem's sake? ZERO. How many sections did you delete? more than 250! Why don't you help us? Don't forget that, YOU created the problem, not us. I bet you had some personal problems about those sections. That's why you're so angry on them. But i am sorry here is too free to care about your personal matters. "as was demonstrated on the Turkish passport articles", no it will not be demonstrated anymore. I'm just in a "testing". If you will continue to play with Serbian_passport, I will re-include all those sections back. GOD, ARE YOU HERE ONLY TO OPPOSE EVERYTHING?! Stop this. Enough! --Ozguroot (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, and what you say borders on a personal attack. I was calmly debating this before you showed up - get over yourself. Unlike you, I do actually have an understanding of the policy to which I refer. The previous consensus reached was to delete the sections entirely, and the compromise reached later was to move ALL visa related data to the other page. I only agreed to the consensus under the assumption that it would be implemented in exactly the way presented - Avala's edits are an attempt to subvert the compromise and are most definitely against it in spirit. I repeat, it goes against the WP:MOS to have blank sections. If you want to go back to edit warring, go ahead. You'll bear the consequences. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, per WP:CCC there is a new consensus which is either use the compromise solution which is include a section with a map and link to separate article, or if this is not accepted by, by this time, minority of users, it is decided to go back to the full insertion of the visa free section. And sorry Happenstance, but I don't see how can you be surprised at attacks on you by other users when you tell them their efforts are crap and garbage. If that is your idea how a calm debate should look like then you are wrong. --Avala (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you guys have found a new "consensus"....

Ah dear. So it appears that you guys have now decided on moving the exact same content minus the introductory sentence to some different title. I don't really see the sense in that, but so be it. (It also has me wondering how long this "consensus" will last...) If that's really the "consensus" (for whatever darn reason), I will withdraw the AfD-nomination provided someone will go ahead with the page-moves ASAP. Please confirm. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Could these one-liners at least remain redirects until that magical "someone" creates actual content? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No. If you don't like these articles, be bold and expand them. We don't have a deadline and these articles have obvious potential. Your laziness is not an excuse for deletion. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it is quite possible that Seb does not have the expertise to expand them. I certainly would not know where to start. However, I suggest withdrawing the AfD simply because the articles could potentially be expanded. If no RSs appear to aid in that process, then renom. However (again), I found info on misuse of the Saint Lucian passport that could be incorporated [2] That took me about one minute... If the other are that easy then this editor has completely failed to attempt to rescue these articles before noming them. He might want to review WP:BEFORE, especially "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing" and "Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered." --Jubilee♫clipman 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

At least thats one less bush fire to worry about while we try to get in the order of 180 new articles off the ground (130+ 'Visa required for....' and 50 odd 'shell' passport articles that need development. Thanks to all who continue to work on these. We'll get there yet. RashersTierney (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Passport manual of style, draft 1

Sigh.

Due to continued squabbling, it appears that there needs to be a process by which we can determine whether a passport article is of good quality, in order to avoid the risk of edit warfare breaking out again. I am not pleased by this and I wish that this minority of editors would get to the task of getting 180 new articles off the ground rather than engaging in behavior for which it is an act of great faith to assume good faith.

That said, there is some evolving catalog of what makes a good passport article, what makes a great passport article, and what sections detract from the quality of a passport article by not being about the passport at all. I will list them, in handy bullet point format, and ask that editors update the list with examples as best they know them of passport articles that exemplify the genre.

• Photo of the passport cover. This is the first graphic that should be on the page. For articles without cover photos, sourcing this should be a primary task. See Category:Images of passports, which currently includes 33 files. Apply an appropriate copyright tag, as well as {{official document}}, lest some bot come and delete your image.
• Lede paragraph. A really good lede paragraph will encapsulate all of the most salient points of all of the main sections in the article, all in a minimum of words.
• History, contemporary and ancient, of the design, acceptance, use and developments of travel documents in the country.
• Gallery of historical photos of the passport, inside and out; again note copyright tags.
• Physical appearance of passport, detailing colors, text inscribed therein, biometric data encoded, watermarking or other special papers, other security features etc.
• Rights to a passport; should reference Country nationality law article, if it exists
• Types of passports issued.
• Fees, duration of passport issuance, replacement of lost passports, and other practical items for travelers as appropriate to the country.
• Visa requirements. Create as a section, with {{main|Visa requirements for country citizens}}. Copy the lede of that article, which typically includes a count of the number of countries for which visa-free travel is available. Note exceptions, countries to which travel is forbidden with or without a visa, and anything notable. If the prose characterization of the visa requirements warrants a map to illustrate it, use an appropriate map.
• References, external links, and "see also" sections provide externally verifiable sources and internal references
• Appropriate categories are in each article, including Category:Passports by country

In addition, there are some passports and countries which are exceptional which require exceptional treatment, e.g. Kosovo passport, Israeli passport, Iroquois passport e.g. which will be expected to contain information relevant to those countries and nations distinctive history.

In addition, there may be other sections variously named in various articles that are encyclopedic and useful and helpful and well sourced, and these should not be removed strictly because they are not in this list; however, they should be less prominent in each case than the core passport information.

In addition, there are some countries where information on the ground is scarce, and considerable latitude must be paid to improving these articles systematically in lieu of any stylistic guidelines on uniform design; this may include sourcing information which would not be in an exceptionally good article, but that is useful as scaffolding in building a better one.

In addition, there are some countries where there are exceptionally detailed details available, and considerable latitude must be placed to allow those details to reside in primary articles, e.g. Physical features of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport, which would otherwise overwhelm the main entry.

You will note carefully that I did mention maps. It is possible, even likely, that some sections of the passport article will include lists of other countries to which travel has some special and notable status. It is in all cases relevant to illustrate these facts with a map. However, these maps should be in all cases less prominent than any photos, scans, or other descriptions of the passport itself. Maps should be accompanied by a narrative that summarizes, characterizes, or explains the map in such a way that if the map were removed the section could stand on its own.

Category:Passport stubs currently contains stub-class passport articles. Some of these are better than others. A passport article is a stub if the photo is missing, if there are no external references, if there is no description of the physical characteristics of the passport, or if the editor thinks it needs to be.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it, subject to subsequent edits, which inevitably there will be. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC) update with visa requirements section recommendation Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed, good work, but there's no need to spam talks with your announcement, we're following the discussion here. :) I have a couple of notes and suggestions, mainly on the visa-free section. That section shouldn't exist on the vast majority of passport articles. It is not needed, it can never really expand beyond one sentence without encroaching on the Visa-free articles, it looks bad, it is only border-line related to the passport itself, it violates the manual of style, and the map should most definitely not be there. There are special circumstances - Kosovo, Taiwan, Israel, etc. but by and large these sections are a no-no. The Physical features of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport article which you mention should be merged to the main article now that the visa-free stuff is gone, it's exactly the kind of excellent content that should exist in an article the sole purpose of which is to document the passport. No need to unnecessarily fork articles and duplicate content. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"It violates the manual of style". Please point out which sections of WP:MOS you think apply; that runs to 53 printed pages on my system and I'm not sure which portion you are referring to. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

One element: WP:MOS#Main article link looks to be relevant

MOS:IMAGES should be relevant in general, though I don't see specific guidance. 14:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I propose the establishment of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (passport-related articles), using Edward's outline as a starting point. This can then be refined through discussion through its own Talk Page. This MOS would have to go through a formal nomination process. The main subject of this discussion can then continue uninterrupted. Thoughts please. RashersTierney (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave that until this discussion concludes, right now I am afraid the discussion of any such MOS proposal will be hijacked. For now it is more fitting to discuss the implementation of the proposal here. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Visa policy articles already on AfD

As afraid visa policy articles are attracting attention of other Wikipedians who find them unnecessary. The first one to be tagged is the Visa policy of Mongolia article. You can see the tagged version here even though User:Dream Focus removed the deletion template we can only expect for more of these cases to surface. The agenda to get rid of visa, visa free and passport articles seems to be unfolding nicely for one user that has it.--Avala (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and Compromise

OK we had a 0 - long established consensus to include visa free sections in passport articles.

Then we had:

• 1 Talk:Passport#Removing_the_.22visa-free_travel.22_blocks_in_passport_articles - consensus to remove them

Then we had:

• 2 Talk:Passport#Undoing_the_removal_of_visa-free_information.3F Talk:Passport#Canvassing Talk:Passport#Links_to_visa_information - consensus to put them back

Then we had

• 3 Talk:Passport#Finalised_proposal_to_fork_articles Talk:Passport#Implementing_Edward.27s_compromise_agreement - compromise solution to move the visa-free sections to a separate article while keeping the link for this new supplemental article through a proper template (Template:See also & Template:Main) with an image and one sentence as it can bee seen all over Wikipedia.

Each time consensus changes were made per WP:CCC, and despite consensus changing quickly due to poor organization of discussion as well as ignoring what was agreed on and the discussion itself (we can see many pleas by users asking for them to be listened to but no response except for blind reverts) and insulting other users (calling their contributions crap and garbage) it is still valid. As we have consistent violation of the latest consensus (ie. compromise solution) by one editor I think it is only fair to go back to the consensus established before that and that is to include the information on visa free travel fully into the articles on passports.--Avala (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can possibly think this latest edit of yours [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbian_passport&curid=8335423&diff=340928613&oldid=340873148 1} is in any way constructive. I'll drop by again when editors have stopped throwing rattles out of the pram.I genuinely hope others are not provoked into a resumption of warring. It seems we may need some outside perspective on this Mad Hatter's Tea Party. RashersTierney (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it ludicrous to believe that just because consensus is constantly being "supposedly" violated, it warrants reversion to the consensus before this brouhaha began. The discussion though which has taken place here over the last n sections does show that despite the presence of a supposedly strong consensus, people who are unaware of the shift and are redirected here are left baffled to ask, only to not get the responses they're hoping for. From what I can see, we need a stronger consensus. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Avala, your assessment of the first consensus was just about correct, but your understanding of the rest of them is skewed (to put it politely). You're also confusing consensus with precedent. The discussion that followed the first consensus is understandable and to be expected, it does not overturn the poll which was very widely publicised (on WP:Centralised discussion and WP:Village pump (proposals)) and closed unambiguously by an administrator (as opposed to you). You're completely off on the compromise, please show me where Edward suggests "an image and one sentence as it can bee seen all over Wikipedia" - I am 106% sure he hasn't, because if he had I would not have acceded to the compromise. You have resumed edit warring, and I would like to know in what way it is constructive. There are now many users following this discussion, none of which are interested in your childish outbursts, and I can assure you that if you continue to edit war it will only reflect poorly on you. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just read that: User_talk:Happenstance#The_one_exception. It seems RashersTierney really wants to find a solution, at least he wants to do "something", an idea.. But you appear again, Happenstance. The maps are unacceptable to me, I'm sorry. You ALWAYS, but JESUS, ALWAYS oppose EVERYTHING!! Seriously, are you joking or what? They are unacceptable to you, ok, but what about the rest? Do you always change whatever is unacceptable to "you" in here? Do you own the Wikipedia? What about the community, the others, the editors, the users, the people? What if they are acceptable to Avala? For God's sake look at these contributions, time, effort he spent on [his article]. He is taking care of that article since 2006, that is what i call CONTRIBUTION! It seems that when he was a member of Wikipedia since 2004, you were not even here. Now, today, he doesn't even has a right to include a little map even on the article that HE CREATED, and the one who did not do anything for that article, has right to remove almost the whole content? No, this is not the Barbie's puzzle. By the way; this is the only "real" contribution of you (before a 5 times of deletions from you) on the article in subject: here. Now thats funny, those visa-free sections were totally ok & totally valid and so encyclopedic for you in the time when you were editing it/them, but now, TADA, the same sections from the same articles suddenly became for you "unnecessary" "unencyclopaedic" "useless" "garbage" "crap" today? What a surprise! They are perfectly acceptable to me, to Avala and to the rest too, it seems. At least nobody seem to "fight with all the power" to destroy them, as much as you do, here. I would like to revert all those articles as they were before. Please do not disturb us and the people here. You took a HUGE time of us for NOTHING, i wish we'd spend our times to improve those articles, instead of answering you or undoing your deletions, i am sure today they were all almost PERFECT. For God's sake, wake up! --Ozguroot (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words, a WP:OWN violation, as Rashers correctly noted in that section. I have been an editor since 2005, but I don't think that confers any sort of senior or superior status on me. I have a good number of edits to passport articles, including two I created, and simply because you can't be bothered looking them up don't mean they aren't there. I have been here all along too. I am not denying Avala has been a great contributor, but he has always had a problem yielding to community consensus, and following policy. How is edit warring meant to be helpful? The maps are unacceptable, not just to me, but they go against the compromise reached. You cannot reach a compromise, and then like a broken record just "compromise" your way back to your original position. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it is you having a problem to accept the consensus here. You can very well see that there is a dozen editors on this page who oppose your idea and who agreed to compromise with you so that you would stop destroying their contributions any further. But since you couldn't accept even that consensus, since you wanted to erase every trace of efforts and contributions of other users I think it is safe to assume you will oppose everything and go on with destructive editing so there is no need to go with the compromise solution anymore and we need to return to go to the latest consensus we have and that is to include this content in the article. But you choose to ignore it, you never answer any questions raised, any specific points, you just go on with banging your head against the wall. If you were actually so comfortable with your consensus you wouldn't have to bother so much here, but instead in case you haven't noticed you had to reply to dozen different angry editors here. Doesn't that tell you something? I sign what Ozguroot said (and in case you are wondering why he is writing in caps and bold, that is to attract your attention because you can see at least three times on this page him openly begging you to listen to him for once and then nothing, nothing, nothing from your behalf, so it seems we have to get pictorial in order to discuss issues with you). I find it almost ridiculous at what lengths you are going to remove some maps, I'd almost ask you if you have anything better to do on Wikipedia then going into such subjective disputes. Finally I am willing to give compromise one more shot. If you again go to destructive rampage of 200 articles against the community will I will take a final view on this that you are not willing to reach a compromise with a dozen editors who oppose you and that you just want things to be your way no matter what for the sake of it but like in real life such behavior cannot be accepted.--Avala (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this, Avala. What Happenstance is doing is, in my opinion, vandalism in disguise.Qwerta369 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys and Gals, we have a working solution that is in the main being respected and implemented effectively. Lets not loose sight of the distance we've come and concentrate on the considerable work still to be done. There are issues of retaining, as far as possible, the 'histories' and moving 'shell' articles to incubation where they can be developed in a sheltered environment, safe from misguided AfD on sight. RashersTierney (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of being told I don't listen by Avala of all people. I have repeatedly expressed my viewpoint, rather than addressing it you just scream that I don't listen. This is just like your baffling accusations of canvassing. I agreed to this, as did you: "The contentious "visa free travel" section that caused 250 edit wars will be pulled to its own page, its own category, and reviewed and sourced and improved accordingly". Please point out where it says that limited visa-free sections will be kept on passport pages, as you insist on doing - it seems to me to be saying exactly the opposite. The map is decorative, it is not linked to the physical nature of the passport in any way, and it does not belong on the article. There are inherent problems with having a mostly blank section that can almost never expand beyond one sentence without encroaching on the visa-free article. I have said all this before, yet you conveniently continue ignoring it. Rashers, I am not sure how you plan to safeguard this proposal, when there are editors intent on weakening it from the very start of its implementation. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

stopppppp thissss!!!!!! stop destroying romanian passport article!!!!! you fucked all these beautiful articles!!!!dont you understand nobody likes your idea in here????? guys, ignore that communist minded retarded hapenstance and continue your great works!!!!

(user warned per WP:NPA Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Awesome! I haven't been called a communist yet this discussion. Now I just need to be called an anarchist and fascist and I get the hat-trick. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with such personal insults. However if you don't want them to happen, you need to stop driving people to that point where they loose control. Also you need to wonder how come so many people went there in context of consensus. If you even have a couple of users openly insulting you and a dozen others opposing you maybe it's time to let it go and accept finally you are in the minority and that your sticking to your views like this is the cause behind all the friction.--Avala (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

People get fired up over the smallest things, that is not my fault. Rarely a day goes by when I am not insulted and attacked on Wikipedia for simple frankness, but I don't go flaccid and complacent in the face of criticism - I am emboldened. You have again failed to answer my points, and yet had I not pointed this out, I am certain you would subsequently accuse me (again) of ignoring yours. What is it about these irrelevant maps that you find so pressing as to endanger and even attempt to renege on the already precarious compromise? I am split between calling it WP:OWN issues and a simple ego-trip. Please help enlighten me. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not the smallest things really, you call their contributions crap and garbage which is something you should use with caution even with open vandalism let alone subjective views and then you are surprised with a reaction but OK. I already answered that this is the MOS that you can see in virtually every article that uses templates for supplemental articles, and you can start viewing this from the article of this talk page - Passport.--Avala (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I didn't quite understand that; please clarify. To which WP:MOS section are you referring? What template? What can I find on this talk page? (Not being nasty - honestly perplexed.) —what a crazy random happenstance 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. We already discussed this. It's not this talk page but the article of it. I even linked it for you, don't what else can I do, link three times? Passport Passport Passport. You can see it in virtually every article that deals with main/see also templates and I have no intention of violating the style of Wikipedia. But this was all discussed to detail before no need to go there again.--Avala (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you're talking about, so I repeat, please clarify. If you are merely talking about the fact that there are sections with "see main" tags elsewhere in Wikipedia, yes, you are correct, but they do not exist solely to transclude a largely irrelevant image. Your farce of a see-main section, can on most passport articles never extend beyond this irrelevant image and perhaps one sentence, if that. That is not an encyclopaedic article section - that is barely an SMS message. It fails to address my other points too, most notably relevance to the physical passport itself (the very reason they were forked). —[[User talk:|what a crazy random happenstance]] 11:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning: User:Happenstance is on revert rampage again, just so that articles could be his way for the sake of it which is spoiled editing IMO, and violating very fragile compromise. If this continues I believe we can again go back to the consensus nr.2 and user Happenstance will have to accept that it is solely his fault that a possibility for this to be solved so that he could be partially satisfied and we can be partially satisfied failed because of his stubbornness to have it his way or no way. It reminds me of a The Dog and the Shadow story somewhat, Happenstance was lucky to get a dozen of us to accept to compromise with him even though we didn't have to, but it wasn't enough for him, he didn't want a compromise, he wanted it all, even beyond what he could get and is now on a brink of loosing it all.--Avala (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you have no argument so you shall throw a tantrum. As I have said before, your understanding of the community discussion seems to be flawed (to put it kindly). If you wish to break the compromise, go ahead - it most likely won't be me that subsequently reverts and warns you, but one of the other editors who have no interest in seeing you destroy a working relationship. Your attempt to reinsert the maps is little more than an attempt to weaken the compromise as a prelude to reinserting the entirety of the visa-free information in the passport articles - that's the only reason why I can see you attempting to be so threatening. Alas, this is not a highly charged international situation, and I am not giving you casus belli. I am acting in the interest of the article, and to the best of my knowledge passports aren't issued with magical maps that show where they can be used. In the interest of maintaining Edward's compromise, I propose another compromise - the see-main sections can stay but the maps go. Would you find this agreeable? —what a crazy random happenstance 13:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to put the little thumbnail map for a better view and easier access of 'Visa requirements'. Wow. That seems much more better, actually: Turkish passport. There isn't any violation, any illegal act, a fake/false information, neither a forbidden or a dangerous image for the visitors health. I implemented the 'Gallery of historic images' section too, as requested. Thanks. --Ozguroot (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Ozguroot. It is a shame that we have to reach some odd compromises just to tame one user from blind reverts but there is a red line which should not be crossed. And that red line should be that we are not going to compromise in making passport articles look worse than other articles just because as I hear one user actually has an agenda to eventually bring those passport articles to such a poor state that the majority of them will be up for deletion. Well that is not the road that we'll take.--Avala (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I offer you a compromise and you try to force the discussion to come to a close. Very telling, and quite pathetic. I have stated about five times why I think these maps are not acceptable, you haven't stated once why you think they are. You cannot close a debate by brute force. I would be OK with mediation if you so wish. I am the good guy here who is trying to make progress. I have offered well-rounded arguments, I have offered compromises, and now even mediation. You just edit war and threaten. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you all to calm down before I even start to try to contribute to this thing you claim is an encyclopedia again. Good luck in whatever it is you are trying to do. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering what I have had to put up with from Avala or Ozguroot, I think I have remained admirably calm. I have created a request for mediation, since this isn't going anywhere and if we continue to edit war sooner or later if will just end in tears for all of us. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I was asked on my talkpage to share my opinion, here it is. I moderately oppose the thumbnail map on the main passport page, for two reasons: (1) it lacks any context, and (2) at thumbnail resolution it's almost completely useless. To me it's not an issue of what material "belongs" on the passport page, just that it's unhelpful and potentially confusing. Contrary to Ozguroot above I don't think the thumbnail on the passport page allows "easier access" to visa information, since the map file by itself also lacks explanation and context, and when you're looking at the file it's awkward to get to the visa article by scrolling down to File Links. The one thing, in my mind, that would make a thumbnail potentially useful on the passport page would be if it were linked to the appropriate visa requirements article rather than to the image file. While I'm at it, having given the matter consideration, I should say the following: (3) I supported, and continue to support, the splitting of visa issues into their own articles, instead of (a) deleting them or (b) keeping them on the passport page; (4) I like the current naming scheme; and (5) I would also support a section in each main passport article containing perhaps a one-sentence summary of visa-travel issues and main-article links to the appropriate visa articles. Relegating the links to the see-also section seems to give them short shrift, in light of the strong thematic connection between the visa articles and the passport articles. All the best—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also asked to share my opinion, but I couldn't get from your discussion, are we here talking about thumbnail map on passport page, or keeping the visa section on passport page or separate article. I will share my opinion on both things. Keeping Visa thumbnail image on Passport page is useless if we don't have visa requirements on passport page. So here is my opinion: 1)We should have Visa-free section on PASSPORT page, like it was before someone deleted it, and got us in this mess. 2) If we can't keep the Visa-free section like it was before, then there is no point of the image on passport page.

I hope we can get back visa-free section on passport page where it belongs, and then leave the thumbnail image of visa-free section where it is suppose to be. If we are going to have separate visa-free section from passport page, there is no use of image.

I say this as contributor of Montenegrin passport. Cheers! Rave92^(talk) 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was also asked to share my opinion on this subject. I think we should keep the visa-free section ON the passport page. I don't agree that this is misleading. Personally, I take care of both Hungarian passport and Costa Rican passport pages. I think there are enough of us in the world to take care of all the passport pages. Wikipedia is famous because it has information about EVERYTHING, so why should we take some of it away?? I think I made my point clear, we should keep the visa-free section and visa-free map on the passport main page. Thanks--Philip200291 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the questions at issue, though, is whether to keep the visa map thumbnail on the passport page if the visa material remains split off into a separate article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that there is nothing all that wrong with keeping the map (as long as it's properly sourced of course, and the image description explains that it is "as of..." and "according to...") on the main passport page. After all, the main use of passport is as travel document. (One would think that its main function is a proof of citizenship, but this actually ain't so, at least not in Canada: when one applies for a passport, one needs to present a "proof of citizenship" which can be one's birth certificate or Certificate of Canadian Citizenship; amazingly, Canadian Passport Office does not accept its own Canadian passports as a proof of citizenship, or at least it did not the last time I dealt with them! It is also a form of ID, but in practice few people use it as such other than in the international travel context). So a map depicting entry privileges granted to the passport's holders by various countries may be quite pertinent in the passport article, methinks. (In some cases one can also have the map show countries which countries recognize the passport as a valid travel document at all: some passports are not recognize world-wide - think of Republic of China, or certain countries in the Near/Middle East...). Vmenkov (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably the two most eminent theorists on 'the Passport' are John Torpey and Mark Salter. Both broadly state that the value of a passport as a 'travel document' rests on its acceptance as an identifier of citizenship. From the point of view of the receiving country, it ultimately indicates to which state an unwanted entrant may be deported. They may serve other purposes, depending entirely on who is presenting them, who is examining them and why. On the matter already resolved, we have implemented a tortuously achieved agreement on how this matter was to be approached. To casually deviate from it now would be a gross breach of faith. The 'visa free blocks' have been forked to their own articles, where these maps properly belong. The new articles are properly linked as agreed. RashersTierney (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ozguroot canvassing again

It has been brought to my attention that Ozguroot has canvassed every single Oppose vote from this discussion and I have reported him here. I am sure any objective observer, no matter his stance on the issue, will realise just how deeply inappropriate his actions were. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Happenstance, Ozguroot did what you were supposed to do. This is not canvassing, but notifying regular editors, something that you failed to do and caused all the mess here. He also did it in neutral manner, something that you also probably wouldn't be able to do. So this is what we wanted you to do in the first place but you didn't do it. And this is what we asked you to do in the future but you failed again - probably because you once again failed to read anything that we write to you, as proven in the mediation discussion where you accused us that something that is on this page was discussed "behind closed doors" and of course didn't apologize after you were proven wrong...--Avala (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)