Talk:Visa policy of Taiwan

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Conscription in the Republic of China - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Visa policy for China citizens?

What's the visa policy for Chinese (PRC) citizens in Taiwan? Aren't they allowed to come visa-free? --Anatoli (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, while China People want to visit Taiwan, they will have to show their travel pass.

Chinese citizens travelling to Taiwan are required to possess a Taiwan Travel Permit for Mainland Residents issued by the Ministry of Public Security of the PRC and an Exit & Entry Permit issued by the National Immigration Agency of the ROC. Both governments only recognise and stamp the travel document issued by the respective authorities. Citizens of the PRC possessing a PRC passport and an Exit and Entry Permit may travel to the territory of the ROC without applying a Taiwan Travel Permit if travelling from a third country or Hong Kong or Macau Special Administrative Region, but may face harsh questioning upon arrival at the borders of the Mainland area of the PRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat403 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Mostly correct except for the last part. Nowadays Chinese Immigration does not care where you arrived from as long as you leave the country legally. Only those who are blacklisted or left China illegally (w/o passing through Immigration checks) will be sent to the police and questioned extensively.C-GAUN (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

.svg map

There was a long discussion on Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens whether to switch to .svg maps and the decision was status quo ie. to keep using .png maps until and if a new consensus emerges. You may try to convince us to use .svg maps by looking at all the reasons why we said .png maps should continue to be used. The way to convince other editors is to start a productive discussion rather than keep changing the article to use the .svg map hoping this would fly. You are the one proposing a change, not the other way around, so that is why you need to initiate the discussion. I have nothing to initiate I am satisfied with the current state of affairs, but you want to make a radical change so please do use this page first.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You could have just linked Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens in the edit summary from the start and save all the trouble. There is no need discuss edits unless they are controversial and you haven't shown so until now.

I don't see how a decision (or a lack of really) for Visa requirements for Georgian citizens applies to this page. My reasons for using svg:

• More details. The svg shows dependent overseas territories whereas the png does not.
• Countries are labelled, which is helpful for less-known countries.
• Better aesthetics. Szqecs (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it is obviously controversial if there is discontent. Anyway, we are trying to make these articles uniform so we can't have just one article step out of the same style used all over for no reason. You can start by addressing issues raised at the Visa requirements for Georgian citizens where a decision to keep the status quo was made. As for svg supposed detail that was also discussed regarding how svg maps are poorly rendered in smaller thumbnails that are used in these articles. Then I don't see the labels and as for "better aesthetics" there is nothing to comment as that is purely subjective.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by poorly rendered? They look the same to me. The labels you need to view the original instead of preview, which can be done. With png you cannot; you would have to open Google maps to see what that country it is. Szqecs (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Twofortnights here. The .png map has been kept for a number of reasons. Let's keep it this way for the sake of uniformity among all visa-related articles. C-GAUN (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why they need to be uniform. Is it uniform that Australian cities (e.g. Sydney) use a unique infobox? The maps are not uniform anyway; different countries have different legends and text styles. Szqecs (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by using a different infobox. Last time I checked most major Australian cities use the a special infobox which deviates from this one used by most other cities, which conforms to uniformity among all Australian city-related articles. I have no idea why you want to deviate from the standard. C-GAUN (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does Australia not have to conform to other countries when it comes to city infoboxes, but when it comes to visa maps, countries must conform to other countries? And as I said, the maps are not uniform anyway. To me the fact that different countries use different legends makes them much less uniform than the file format. I gave 3 reasons for the change, 2 of which are quite concrete. Szqecs (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are not making much sense here by refuting your own argument. Australia has hundreds of cities which all belong to Category:Cities in Australia while Taiwan (and anywhere else) has only one visa policy and the article is under Category:Visa policy by country. The whole category is divided into sub-categories in Category:Cities in Australia while that didn't happen under Category:Visa policy by country, and all cities of Australia use the same infobox under the same category. C-GAUN (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Category tags fixed. DexDor ^(talk) 16:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

So? As far as I can tell there is no concrete reason for Australia to not use Template:Infobox settlement other than the author felt like it. There is no benefit to simply being the same with other countries, but you insist on it without stating the benefits. You still haven't addressed the fact that the maps are not uniform regardless of file format. You still haven't addressed the issue with dependent territories missing in the png map. Szqecs (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Australian infobox, I think you are beating a dead horse as C-GAUN already explained why your logic doesn't apply. As for the questions regarding the map all raised so far had been addressed in the discussion on the Georgian article talk page. If you have any new questions I think everyone would be glad to discuss. Different legends obviously come from the fact that countries have very different visa policies from simple to extremely complex.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Where? I searched "label" and "territor" on that page and didn't see any relevant discussions. Szqecs (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Szqecs you did not get any support for your proposed change above. So please stop trying to push for it with article edits. Being pushy against consensus is rude and it will only lead to this article getting locked.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I gave my reasons for using svg, and I have addressed the counterargument. You have not fully addressed my argument. You are in violation of disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits). Szqecs (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, you are the one who lost consensus here. My concerns raised earlier were never given a proper explanation. In my view, you violated WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by disregarding consensus and rejecting inputs from impartial editors. Please just stop this nonsense. C-GAUN (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What concerns have I not explained? First you write

“ we are trying to make these articles uniform so we can't have just one article step out of the same style used all over for no reason. ”

when I already gave you the reasons, and I said that there is no benefit to being uniform. Specifically there is no policy for uniformity. You then wrote

“ that was also discussed regarding how svg maps are poorly rendered in smaller thumbnails that are used in these articles. ”

I checked and there are no such mention of rendering other than

“ Also the thumbnails of svg maps on Wikipedia don't look so nice ”

Which is written by you. But then you wrote

“ as for "better aesthetics" there is nothing to comment as that is purely subjective ”

So your purely subjective view is valid, mine is not? You then wrote

“ As for the questions regarding the map all raised so far had been addressed in the discussion on the Georgian article talk page. ”

I didn't see them and when I asked you where you again ignore. From the start have been trying to use Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens as a convenient excuse to avoid discussion. Szqecs (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that there is no consensus to change the map format here. But you think that pushing the edit through instead of discussing it is a way to have it "your way". You need to accept that your view is not shared by the majority of editors, that at some point the discussion needs to be concluded instead of asking the same questions over and over again and that making contrary edits in the article is unacceptable. You can pout your lips but don't cause a mess please.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to open you eyes and look at what I've written. I have been fully engaged in the discussion and you are the one who stopped half way. Your "no consensus" BS in no grounds for reversion per WP:DONTREVERT, and you behavior is in violation of disruptive editing:

“ Does not engage in consensus building:

a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

”

I will report you if you keep this up. Szqecs (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That personal attack is uncalled for. Let me be absolutely clear that it is your responsibility to do your homework (in this case, to find out whether the use of the Australian infobox is a result of consensus). You also failed to respond to my concern regarding the uniformity of visa policy-related articles by simply dismissing them because you do not "see" them. I shall also remind you that now you are acting like you claim ownership to this article which is prohibited under WP:OWN. In this case you have lost consensus and by insulting an editor and threaten to "report" him you may be in violation of Wikipedia's conduct policy on harassment. Misquoting my words do not help either. C-GAUN (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure there is consensus for the Australian infobox. My point was that there is no benefit to being uniform, nor is there a policy for uniformity, which you have yet responded further. I sure as hell have responded. At the very least I acknowledge that this is where we disagree. However you have yet addressed my concerns: dependent territories and labels. I'm simply following Wikipedia policy. What have I misquoted? I don't think I have quoted you at all. Szqecs (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Your position on uniformity is like this: I make a rule that every page should have my name on it. You remove my name from a page and I ask you to "respond" to why you don't follow this rule. Szqecs (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only repeat myself. You came here with a proposal to change this article, the proposal which was not accepted by other editors for the reasons that were well explained (although I acknowledge that you think more explaining could be provided however I have responded that I think that the questions you are raising are repetitive). You decided to push for it by continuously trying to change the article regardless of what happened on this talk page. That is what objectively happened here, those three events - your proposal, no endorsement through discussion, your attempts to push for it forcefully anyway. What is the point of discussion if you are going to do whatever you wanted to do in the first place anyway?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - SVG looks cleaner and much better in terms of colours, The font size could be smaller but apart from that the SV map looks much better. –Davey2010^Talk 14:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Szqecs, forum shopping won't help either.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Forum shopping? You directed me to a previous discussion. No shopping necessary. Szqecs (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Update

Update: Taiwan announced visa free travel for citizens of many Caribbean and Latin American nations. http://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=1EADDCFD4C6EC567&s=CFCD52FE36E986F9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald911 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Commonname Principle

Please note that due to the consensus reached regarding the ROC's WP:COMMONNAME (which is Taiwan), editors of the article should accordingly use China as the WP:COMMONNAME of the People's Republic of China. C-GAUN (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

The latest is here: https://www.immigration.gov.tw/media/88284/1120101regulations-on-entering-taiwan.pdf – Kaihsu (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)