File talk:Schengen Area.svg

Croatia
Croatia is joining the EU, so does that make it a future member of the Schengen Area?--DrewMek (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the term "future member" is inappropriate. A future member is any country which will join at some point in the future. Let's say that Russia joins the Schengen Area in 100 years. In that case, Russia is also a "future member". A better term, which currently fits with how the template is used, would be "EU country without an opt-out from the Schengen treaty". --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we had long discussions (here) on the reasoning for using "future member". It is now used for those countries "legally bound to join Schengen" and thus they have a very clear status (although with indefinite entry date). After Croatia has joined the EU, it is IMO indeed a "future member" as well. L.tak (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Croatia has now been a member for nearly a year, and is legally bound to join Schengen. Time to bring the map into line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.95.242 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's on the map. CMD (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

new
The Faroe Islands and the Shetland Islands don't exist on this map. Why is such a inaccurate map being used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.183.143 (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They do exist, they're just extremely small and don't come out well at this resolution. CMD (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Monaco
According to the lead section of the article, it should be navy-blue too. 46.186.34.99 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see: it is navy blue (the white spot is andorra...) L.tak (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the IPs point was that Monaco should be navy blue rather than light blue. (The only navy blue states I see are San Marino and the Vatican City.)  Given their unique situation (effectively part of the Schengen Area via France but not formally a party to the Schengen Agreement) it might make sense to make them a different colour than the parties to the Agreement.  But would it make more sense to add a new colour, or lump them in with the navy blue states?  TDL (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is navy blue supposed to represent? I'm happy for it to represent de facto members like Monaco. CMD (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (ok, my mistake regarding navy blue/light blue). But on a serious note... While the state of Monaco may be a de facto member of schengen, the territory of Monaco is fully and formally incorporated in schengen as part of France. This map does not show any countries, so I always took it to indicate the territory where the regulations are formally applicable and would prefer to keep the colour the way it is; it is however not a very big deal... L.tak (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that there are some contexts where the difference between de facto members and full parties to the Schengen Acquis are notable and should be indicated. For example, on Schengen Agreement wouldn't it make sense to depict which states have actually ratified the agreement and which states are legally part of the Schengen Area via some other method?  TDL (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly would make sense in some way. We could make a file (with borders visible!) with that information available (we could even make 3/4 categories: 1985 Schengen Treaty parties (15?); other EU/EEX schengen states; de facto Schengen; incorporated via another country). Shall I make something along those lines? L.tak (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good compromise to separate the area and agreement status. I'd propose the following categories: parties to the Schengen Acquis (all EU full participants), states with Schengen association agreements (4 EFTA states), de-facto participants (Monaco), EU states obliged to join (4 states), opt-outs (UK/IE).  I think those are the 5 distinct legal statuses in regards to the Schengen Acquis.  TDL (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The purpose of this map is to simply show the areas in the Schengen area, and the areas obliged to join. Splitting the different areas which are part of the Schengen only confuses this. I don't think opt-outs are that important either. CMD (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but L.tak's proposal was to create a second map. So this map would continue to exist as is, showing the geographic areas that make up the Schengen Area.  A second map would be created to depict the differing legal situations of states with regards to the Schengen Acquis.  Such a map would be helpful in certain contexts, such as on Schengen Agreement.  But in other contexts, such as in the infobox of Schengen Area, the present image here would be the most sensible one to use.  TDL (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @CMD: I'm not sure what the navy blue is supposed to represent. My guess is that it's that these states have open borders with the Schengen Area.  I'm not sure that is really relevant to the subject of this map.  Perhaps we should change the meaning of navy blue from open borders=>de facto members fully integrated into the Schengen Area.  Light blue would represent states which are party to the Schengen Acquis.  TDL (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Where’s Kosovo?
It doesn’t appears on the map, despite the fact that the vast majority of the European Union countries recognize it as an independent nation-state… it should, at least, represented by a doted line.--179.153.193.237 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Microstates
If we're going to be adding circles for microstates, it might be a good idea to include /all/ of them, currently missing is Liechtenstein, and it may also be a good idea to add circles around Malta and the Faroe Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurryaany (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)