Talk:Travel visa

message: :: Spartaz, I am not try to pick a fight. I doubted TIM once as I knew nothing of its existence. However it would seem a little daft if immigration authorities check their own regulations from an external source. I do not know how your workplace operates and I will not pretend I do.
As far as I am concerned TIM is a veiled publication which seems not to be available at the Australian National Library and I imagine not many other libraries. Perhaps wikipedia could direct users to purchase TIM? (I think not). It is a trade publication which very few people have access to. I do not have access to it can find no realistic way to gain access apart from paying some (I imagine) huge amount of dollars to a publisher.
I think we are in agreement that;
1. Timatic contains some errors yet is a very useful source for airport entries.
2. projectvisa contains quite a few more errors but contains information not available or relevant to timatic.
I think you agreed that the link projectvisa should be included as long as the link said the data might be a load of rubbish?
I propose the links read like this;
 external links
You are advised to contact the relevant authorities (your local embassy) for visa requirements prior to travel.
Timatic/Delta - contains visa and health information relevant for air travel to most airports. Is used by the majority of airlines to ensure entry requirements.
Projectvisa - contains visa regulations from sources which may not be verified. Contains information on land border crossings. 
Please feel free to suggest something different.
Lets not get stuck on TIM. Indeed not every source on the internet is reliable but we should at least point out those which are available and are of use. If TIM was available a little more freely I think we could quite happily link to that and move on.
Shanebb 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't a consensus to list projectvisa as an external link. Both policy and comments from other editors support this. I think we can all agree that Jagz has done the right thing linking directly to the IATA site and I thank him for finding this. I'm more than willing to e-mail you any part of TIM that you would like. Do you want to email me with your e-mail address? I can even send you an old copy if you are willing to pay postage. And, I'm sorry to belabour the point now that we are discussing this calmly, TIM is no different to academic journals that may not be available without private subscriptions or access to university journals but these are clearly acceptable sources. All I have used it for is checking the accuracy of projectvisa so this is a red herring anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timatic (part 2)

message: Being one of the main authors of the German-language "visa" article ("Visum"), I think that the above discussion about the definition is in no terms absurd, but scratches at the main problem of understanding the concept of visa at all. To put it short, the exact understanding of what a visa is varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, making it difficult not only to internationally negotiate about visa questions, but also to describe what a visa legally implies. To present some examples (all of this is well documented and referenced in the German article):
* In the United States, a visa is an official remark placed into a passport or other (according to U.S. definition) suitable travel document which allows the bearer to request entry into the U.S. The permit to enter and to stay in the U.S. is granted at the border by the immigration official. Result: If the immigration officer refuses entry, the goal of any legal action against this would be aimed at a court order to allow entry and subsequent stay.
* In the European Union (in the Schengen states as well as in the U.K. and Ireland), a visa already implies the permit to enter and to stay. However, an entry check has to be performed at the external borders, and the visa (and the permits contained in them) can be withdrawn by immigration officials once the entry criteria are not met. However, the grant of entry would not involve a fresh decision allowing entry or stay, but is rather a factual act. The entry stamp is only a documentation of the mere fact that a person factual entered into the territory concerned.
* Some jurisdictions, like Japan, know the difference between a visa and a landing permit. The latter, looking very much alike a visa, is granted at the port of entry and contains the permit to reside and stay. However, it is not a visa (Japanese visa can be required to apply for a landing permit, thus, the legal construction is very much alike the U.S. one).
* In Switzerland (until they will apply the Schengen rules later this year), the current situation is even more tricky: A visa (if required) does not allow entry or stay, but forms a waiver from the obligation of a foreigner to register with the cantonal authority during its period of validity (such authority would, after registration, decide about the foreigner's status after obligatory registration).
* In some jurisdictions, such as Turkey, a visa is formally required by many nationals (like British) in order to enter, but it is granted quickly at the airport of arrival. There, the grant of a visa at the port of entry is the rule in many cases. However, other nationals, as, e.g., Germans, do not need to pass through this visa on arrival procedure, but still have to pass through immigration control.
* In the EU, however, visa on arrival may only be granted in very exceptional cases (strong humanitarian or political cases).
It might be helpful to outline the difference between visa and entry stamps. However, entry stamps can also have different meanings. In the EU, it is only a documentation of entry. However, once a third-country national does not have it in his or her passport, it may be presumed that such person overstayed.
Differences also apply with respect to terminology:
* The U.S. would subsume the term "visa" under the heading "travel document" - quite logically from the point of view of the U.S. legal construction, as the visa is an endorsement of the passport which makes it "eligible" for entry purposes, but does not involve a formal decision about entry or residence rights.
* In Europe, where a visa is considered a permit to enter and stay, a visa is not considered a travel document, but a permit allowing to stay, rather similiar to a residence permit. It is regarded rather as a form of residence permit granted by embassies abroad (before Schengen, German visa, e.g., even hat the formal printed heading: "Residence permit granted in form of a visa").
* In Eastern Asia, the term "pass" is common for visa and entry permits. Thus, Singapore calls entry stamps for tourists: "Social visit pass".
In an English language article, the history of visa in particular in the English speaking countries could also be documented (I cannot do this, as I do not have easy access to too many English language historical documents). When did the U.S. and the U.K. introduce visa, and why? How has this changed over time, and why?
I would encourage interested readers to review and enhance the English-language article accordingly and could offer some help, in particular with respect to the legal situation in Europe. However, I do not want to start re-structuring this whole article (which I think would be necessary) without first stating my opinion and strating some discussion about this, which I do herewith. --DanSchultz (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  We could certainly make note of the fact that German uses the singular Latin word "visum", reserving the plural "visa" for a collection of such documents.  I've read that some immigrants to English-speaking countries are confused by this into believing they need more than one entry document.  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Latin "visum" vs "visa" is not singular vs plural. It is neuter vs feminine (See ). In "charta visa", the participle agrees in gender with the noun "charta", thus "visa". --77.232.15.45 (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Visum" exists as a noun in Latin and it's plural (nominative) is "visa." This is well integrated/adopted in German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages. Jurjenb (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

text: from the two times i've been to Turkey it felt more like a tourist tax. They don't actually seem to check anything, just cash in. You do get a nice stamp for your money though. Maybe tax is a bit hars... It's rather a forced souvenir ;-) Anyway, i've asked the Dutch language society about visum/visa/visas. Seems to me the english just incorporated a word that was originally part of an expression but not a verb. The dutch and german on the other hand, took the noun version of the latin word, and it's proper latin plural. PizzaMan (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  turns out both are ok with visum/visa/visas. The latin is "charta visa", which is singular, not plural. So it's fine to use visa as evolved from charta visa as singular. But it's also ok to consider visa as latin for "that which is seen", in which case it's plural, with visum being singular. PizzaMan (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visa definition and suggestions for a re-structuring of the article 

message: Since MOS:CONSISTENCY generally mandates consistent spelling within the same article, unless there are good arguments for an exception to be made, I needed to discover the first edit which used a national variety in this article since (obviously?) MOS:TIES does not apply. 
I believe it was this edit in 2004 which chose to spell travelling rather than traveling. I will, therefore, place the appropriate template. --BushelCandle (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit also used organization, so shouldn't the article use Oxford spelling? --Roastedturkey (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly...--BushelCandle (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, I should probably make the relevant changes.--Roastedturkey (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: US or non-US English?

message: As I found https://cova.mfa.gov.cn/qzCoCommonController.do?show&pageId=index&locale=en_US . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it is only the application that may be made online. In the version of our article current at the time I write this: "An electronic visa (e-Visa or eVisa) is stored in a computer and is linked to the passport number so no label, sticker, or stamp is placed in the passport before travel" - which I don't believe is the case with the Peoples Republic of China - as opposed to Taiwan... --BushelCandle (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't China also an e-visa country?

message: . Greatder (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Bangladesh 

message: This article is a bit US-centric. Specific visa types are listed for numerous US visas, not for other countries. The immigrant visa section seems to indicate family-based immigration is the only kind that exists, even though the very same article notes further up that employment-based visas can lead to immigration benefits in some cases. Other examples that don't (necessarily) involve family relationships include Israeli Aliyah, the US diversity visa program or points-based systems like those in Canada or Australia that take a more holistic view of an applicant's background. I'm not sure how to best integrate these points into the article, but thought I would start by mentioning them here. Stian (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit US-centric; immigrant visa section needs improvement 

message: Please see a discussion at WikiProject Travel and Tourism regarding spammy external links at visa policy articles. Fork99 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section of various related articles 

message: "Fingerprinting countries/regions include ... Paraguay"
Are we sure about that? I know this is original research, but I've been to Paraguay, and I was not fingerprinted. There's no citation provided, so I suggest taking Paraguay off the list. 2401:7000:CA51:8100:D511:57D3:D351:746A (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biometrics