Talk:Travel visa

Timatic (part 2)

 * 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)
 * 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)

Here's information on the IATA link that we're now using. --Jagz 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of visa
This article seems to have the whole definition of the word visa wrong from the outset. I have edited the meaning at the beginning of the page but I really don't know the best way to go about this for the entire article. Please be so kind as to outline what I have done wrong in the edit here in the discussion before hitting the revert button. Constructive criticism is most welcome. And yes my speling gramarr is not the best so please fix as you see fit. Shanebb 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * grammar? Not as bad as my spelling, that's for sure! I'll look at this properly for you tomorrow but my first glance was that you may be confusing a physical visa with a residence permit or leave to remain. Its not probably not factually correct to say that permission to remain in a country is a visa. It may be contained in a visa (for example UK visas now contain leave to enter and schengen visas determine the length of your stay) but the traditional concept of a visa is as a document that certain persons require before they can enter a particular country that is usually issued by foreign missions abroad. American visas for example give you the right to seek entry to the USA but whether or not you are admitted is the competance of the immigration inspector and if you are a resident (ie have a green card) you do not need a visa at all. I'd like you to cite a source for the changes you have made because what you have done so far looks suspiciously like original research to me. Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * *cough* source? Its traditional to provide sources for changes when requested. Please do so, otherwise I will feel free to revert some of your changes. Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I probably stuffed up some things. Just to clarify, getting permission to enter from a border guard (ie a stamp in the passport) is a visa. A visa on arrival is an entrance tax, you pay for entry/visa. A granting of a visa is decided by an immigration official with a rubber stamp.

Sorry I don't know where I should be linking to for this sort of information as it doesn't really seem to exist on the internet. I am agreeing with you here, I'm just not sure how I should be citing references for definitions/procedures which seem to be commonly known to at least the two of us (and many others). Shanebb 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No you are wrong. A stamp at the border is permission to enter the country (in the UK its called leave to enter in the states its a visa waiver. Its not a visa. That's a piece of paper or stamp put in the passport generally by a Embassy or consulate although some countries issue visas on arrival (i.e. Turkey). . The reason you can't find a source for this is that you are quoting a common misconception that is often seen, for example, from people from the old commonwealth countries.


 * Legally an immigration officers stamp is not a visa. Its a stamp that has varying meanings depending on the country. In terms of how far you need to provide sources, the rule of thumb should be if you are changing the entire meaning of an article you need a source first. Otherwise, if an editor disagrees with what you have written you need to provide sources at that point. Its good practise to generally be able to provide sources for your edits but not to the point of pettyness. For example, I obviously know a lot about visa processes and procedures through my job but I can't write about it even though I know its correct because I know the sources for this are either annecdotal or not in the public domain.


 * I'm shortly going to review your edits and revert some bits - hopefully not all. You are welcome to restore anything that you can find a source for and we can further discuss any problems on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow Spartaz it seems to me that in your immigration officer mind you have take anything I say or write with contempt without giving any consideration as to what it is you may be editing or what the details are.

Please go and find a dictionary and look up the definition of visa. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/visa?view=uk

I changed the context of the beginning of the article to reflect this but of course you are an immigration officer so you must no better than any dictionary.

Secondly I did actually quote a website with some information and that was the presence of an Israeli stamp in a passport, I think I even referenced it properly. So you go so far as to leave the information I entered but remove the source which I quoted? And this is even after you tell me I should be citing my sources. What the bloody hell do you want me to do? So can you tell me straight, do I cite my references or do I engage in petty minded edits in order only to piss certain people off?

I really think you need to step back a little and look at exactly what is going on here. You are trying to be the immigration official who knows better than someone who doesn't have your grand knowledge of such things.

Please would you be so kind as to revert the edits to as they where or perhaps outline your continued pettiness as to why you have done the changes.

I am not surprised a lot of people stay well away from editing wikipedia when they faced with a person such as yourself who engages in personal vendettas so as only to prove that they are right in a completely separate area. You are only right because the other person has given up and thinks a whole lot less of you.


 * Please try to keep neutral in what you are editing and don't let your personal judgment (i.e. who has made the edit) cloud the issue. I would much prefer if we could come to some sort of agreement with this rather than having to resort to mediation or the like. Shanebb 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of your constant personal attacks. Stop it now. I only mentioned my profession because you called me a liar in an earlier post. The changes I made are:


 * Reverting the lead to reflect what a visa actually is and how the article has been for years. Still waiting for a source to challenge this. I asked you for this yesterday and you couldn't provide one.
 * Removed personal commentry and unsourced POV statements. Please provide sources for that.
 * Removed unsourced original research
 * Removed an invalid reference to your addition of countries that refuse Israelis and previous visitors to Israel. I left the text, it just needs a better source - projectvisa ain't it.
 * Removed reasons for refusal that the independent monitor criticised in a sample of refusals and actually stated were not valid reasons to refuse someone (not specialised knowledge but I did read the report).
 * Combined the types of visa sections
 * Made a couple of spelling mistakes
 * Removed a factual inaccuracy concerning movement rights for EU nationals.


 * The onus is on the person who wants to add material to an article to show that the changes are worthwhile and in accordance with policy. We do not permit original research or POV editingand sources are required when requested to verify information added to articles. I asked you twice to provide sources and you have not done so. I waited 24 hours after the first request to allow you time to source your changes and only reverted the article after you said that you couldn't. You respond with threats of mediation, personal attacks and bad faith. This isn't how we do it here. I already indicated that you could readd any material that you could source. If you want your changes find sources otherwise stop complaining. Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So you remove the source of data I put in but allow the data to remain? I don't think I am going to stop complaining here. Now you will refer to some wikipedia guidelines or whatnot which really don't back you up at all.

I'm sick of this. How do I put an end to it? I don't want to spend the rest of my life arguing with someone who is quite obviously only trying to have an argument.

So you say the information is good enough you just don't like the source? You don't even dispute the fact just the source. WOW!

This going to turn into the debate that the only real source of information is the TIM manual or TIMATIC. And you are an immigration officer and you know a nice man who works at TIMATIC.

Get it into to your head every source has a use. Not every source is fantastic, but sometimes a source is better than no source. I was under the impression wikipedia needed diversity. Why don't we just invite the TIMATIC people to write the visa section for us and we can lock the article and leave it at that? Shanebb 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you going to source any of the statements I reverted or are you going to continue to attack me instead. THis is sterile. Provide sources or drop it. Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't drop it. What I am complaining about is this; "Removed an invalid reference to your addition of countries that refuse Israelis and previous visitors to Israel. I left the text, it just needs a better source - projectvisa ain't it."

I also think the definition of visa is wrong.

The projectvisa site has been listed on wikipedia since 2004 and suddenly is it no good because we have to use the site you say we use. It fits under sources and links which can be used according to policy/guidelines.

The rest of what you say is most likely justified but it is pointless for me to edit when we keep locking horns. I don't think you will like any of my sources no matter how hard I try. Shanebb 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only editor who disagrees with the link. You are complaining that I didn't remove your text with the source - that's a new one on me. Your source is not reliable - we did that already. I'm not the only one who thinks that. I didn't add the IATA link. I didn't change the IATA link I'm not particularly interested in whether we keep the IATA link. But other editors clearly agree because they (not me) have taken steps to defend it. This is an article about Visa (document) not visa concept so while your point about the dictionary definition of the work may be relevant its not right to have a discussion on semantics in the lead. Better off to have a discussion about what different people mean by the term in a separate section further down the article. I have given you lots of pointers to policy, space to research and add sources without immediately reverting your un-sourced changes that did not meet content guidelines and I haven't reported you or blocked you for your personal attacks on me and constant bad faith. I made it plain that I would not have any problem to your adding any content once you had sourced it. I have discussed everything and have sought outside assistance and opinions to ensure that I have been acting fairly and without being a dick. The problem is that you want to jump in and make a lot of changes without first working out how wikipedia works and what you need to do to have your content survive. You don't seem interested in cooperating with other editors or taking their views into account unless they agree with you. I'm a very easy editor to work with if I'm not insulted and called a liar all the time. You created a problem by constantly attacking me. Once you stop that you will be amazed how easy it is to sort out differences of opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this whole discussion absurd. Like the article now says after Spartaz's edits, a visa is proof that an embassy has vetted you, but the actual permission to enter is only granted at the border.  Here's a reference to the IATA site (excellent find, BTW!):


 * A visa is an entry in a passport or other travel document made by a (consular) official of a government to indicate that the bearer has been granted authority to enter or re-enter the country concerned.


 * A visa, transit visa or a visa exemption for a country does not guarantee admission to that country. The final decision rests with the competent authorities at the port of entry in the country concerned. |outline


 * The one thing I don't like about the wording above is that it doesn't make sufficiently clear that the "entry in a passport" is made before immigration (and the entry permit you get at immigration is not a visa), but if we can work that in there, I'd suggest using this as the base of the wording and citing IATA for it. Jpatokal 02:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So lets get this straight. I cannot use a source which is not in the external links even though it entirely fits in with sources I can use according to the wikipedia guidelines? Can someone other that Spartaz please outline exactly how this works? I am terribly confused. Shanebb 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard <-- Spartaz Humbug! 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shanebb:
 * You can't use a source that is not reliable.
 * Unreliable sources are not better than no source - they're worse.
 * Projectvisa is not a reliable source.
 * Whether or not it is in the external links section is irrelevant.
 * It really isn't hard and it's been said before. You would probably enjoy editing Wikipedia more if you stuck to adding information on subjects that you understand more clearly and where you are familiar with expert information on the subject rather than simply layman works.  Also, please stop being so abusive to other editors in the way you're abusing Spartaz.  Your behavior isn't helping you or this article.  -- SiobhanHansa 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So lets get this straight. The information on a source may be used as reference and even in the article BUT the source itself cannot be named? It would seem the source was reliable enough for the information in question. I don't think I understand any of this citing source stuff at all. It seems to be a reliable source at the whim of someone who has enough points?

I think this has all come down to a personal issue rather than the information itself. Shanebb 16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here: The information on a source may be used as reference and even in the article BUT the source itself cannot be named? but I think you mean that you put in some information that you found on the projectvisa site and the projectvisa link was removed but the information stayed on the page - and you think this seems a bit silly.  If that's the case I think you have misunderstood the intent of deleting the use of the projectvisa link as a source while leaving up the assertion in the article.  This was to allow you (or other editors) time to find a source that does support what was written and is actually reliable.  If a good source can not be found then the information is liable to removed at any time if an editor doubts its veracity.  You seem to imply you think a source is reliable because it contains the information that's in the article - but that point of a source isn't simply to reflect what the page says, it is to verify that what is in the article reflects the best current understanding(s).  Linking to a website simply because it says what the article says is of no use to us from a verifiability perspective.  When we say reliable source we mean here is a website that can be relied upon and trusted - and so the information that has been put in the article from it can be relied upon.  Otherwise our verifiability policy would mainly help us repeat common and popular misunderstandings, fringe theories or successful marketing - and an encyclopedia shouldn't be doing that.  A reference that is appropriate as a reliable source is generally one where experts in a subject would be comfortable suggesting people look to it for the information (within the context within which it is used in the article).  Most websites, do not meet this sort of definition.  While we do often link to sources that aren't perfect, the projectvisa link has none of the sorts of things we normally look for in a source (reputation among experts, good fact checking, etc).  If I have misunderstood what you meant by your question perhaps you could rephrase. -- SiobhanHansa 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Although "This was to allow you (or other editors) time to find a source that does support what was written and is actually reliable." summed it up quite well.

From my looking around at the articles on wikipedia there seems to be a lot of inconsistency with what is used as a source, what to to include and what the articles link to. It can be difficult to determine or understand what is acceptable and what isn't. There also seems to be a lot of pages and words which deal with the processes of wikipedia and its guidelines. In short a lot of the articles on wikipedia could do with a lot of cleaning up.

I also get the feeling the article Visa(document) was created to disambiguate it from the other visa pages. Is an extra article needed to ensure the definition of visa is correct?

definition "visa" http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/visa http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861734308/visa.html I think it is quite important that the definition be established. While the usage of the word has changed in some spheres due to usage in the commerce driven realm I don't think that changes what a visa is.

definition "document" http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/document http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/document.html By definition a stamp on (or in) a passport is a document. By definition a visa is a stamp or any permission to enter. Spartaz stated "This is an article about Visa (document) not visa concept....". I think they are one in the same, the question is what would be the needed to ensure the meaning is correct in relation to this article?

Perhaps wikipedia can link itself into oblivion and around in circles but is a new article needed to cover an "entry stamp" when it is by definition a visa/document? Shanebb 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, lots of our articles need clean up.


 * Visa (document) is about the legal concept used by countries to facilitate access for non-citizens. There are other visa articles that are about credit cards or cars that use the word visa, but there's only one on this concept.   This is a technical, legal subject; general dictionary definitions tend to be really poor starting points for encyclopedia articles, especially technical subjects, because they deal with general usage of a word, not with concepts.  Not all documents that allow entry into a country (or indicate that entry has been granted) are visas.  The lack of general understanding of the distinction between visas and other aspects of entering a country is something we need to be dispelling, not repeating.  So I agree we need to make it clear to regular readers what the term really means in this article.  But it appears you want an article to talk about entry into countries that uses the term visa in a way that is not considered a visa by those countries or by experts, and I don't think that's very encyclopedic.  -- SiobhanHansa 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Visa definition and suggestions for a re-structuring of the article
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Archiving
Does anyone have a problem setting up automatic archiving (e.g. discussions stale longer than 2 months, with a minimum of 3 threats)? L.tak (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * (Assuming that you mean threads rather than threats) I would like some human intelligence to decide whether a "dead" thread that might still be pertinent for future editors to read should be archived or not. BushelCandle (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Transclusion of the Henley & Partners Passport Index table/list to the corresponding subsection of Visa Restrictions
I've always had an interest in traveling so I used the Henley & Partners Passport Index quite often. I took a look at it again a couple of days back and saw that the top ten or fifteen something table was missing from the Henley & Partners Passport Index subsection of the Visa Restrictions section. I also saw that someone had listed that the top ten or something summary in the subsection was transcluded from the main Henley & Partners Passport Index article. Since the summary table from the subsection was removed, I went to the main article, only to find that the table was outdated and incomplete. I completed and updated the table/list in the main article, but also tried to look into how to transclude a new summary table to the corresponding subsection of the Visa Restrictions section. (note- I'm not well versed in editing) I gave up trying to transclude a new summary table, and am now asking that someone more experienced in editing would take a look at transcluding a new summary table of about 10-15 ranks from the main article table to the corresponding subsection of the Visa Restrictions section. The only other option would be to think about removing the Henley & Partners Passport Index subsection entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanApple (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * THanks for all your hard work in updating the table!
 * I am currently working my way through all the national visa articles from A to Z (I'm currently editing Canada) and I will update the lede in each case to link directly to the updated Henley & Partners Passport Index page. It's a bit like painting the Forth Bridge, but when I reach Zimbabwe, I hope I have time to fix other whoopsies - if someone does not beat me to it...--BushelCandle (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

US or non-US English?
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)


 * This edit also used organization, so shouldn't the article use Oxford spelling? --Roastedturkey (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Possibly...--BushelCandle (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well then, I should probably make the relevant changes.--Roastedturkey (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't China also an e-visa country?
As I found https://cova.mfa.gov.cn/qzCoCommonController.do?show&pageId=index&locale=en_US. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

A bit US-centric; immigrant visa section needs improvement
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)

External links section of various related articles
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)

Biometrics
"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)