Template talk:Schengen

Independent page?

I am frustrated about this template. It is very big and is included in many articles.

Somebody visiting a Schengen country will usually visit more than one, and has probably little interest in reading the same text for every one.

Additionally, after having read the template text a few times one will start skipping it. If there is additional information in the article of a certain country, it will easily be missed.

I think it would be better to move the content to a travel topic page Schengen Agreement (now a redirect) and have this template include only the link and a very short introduction, something like:

{{PAGENAME}} is a member of the Schengen Agreement. See the separate article for visa requirements, border controls etcetera.

There are no border controls between countries that have signed and implemented the treaty – most of the European Union and a few other countries. Likewise, a visa granted for any Schengen member is valid in all the countries.

You still have to clear customs in some cases.

--LPfi (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree in principle, don't have enough free time to ponder exact wording of the abbreviated template though. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

While I understand and sympathize with the concept, one of our goals is to have each article be self-contained to the extent possible. Directing readers to a different article for visa requirements and border controls seems to violate that principle. Powers ^(talk) 15:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that at this point we could really limit the amount of information on the Schengen Treaty in each article. We don't repeat the same instructions on Flying everytime we deal with a destination with an airport. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

While that's true, this is information that would normally be in each article, except for the fact that it's common to a score of countries. Powers ^(talk) 22:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I would frankly not list all of those countries needing and not needing visas if I were creating an article from scratch, I'd ask people to consult their local foreign affairs webpage or that of the embassy of a given country, as the visa situation may change and we risk getting outdated as nobody will probably be going to monitor the visa situation between Nicaragua and Kazachstan. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This template has now been changed to remove much of the information, exactly like what was discussed and objected to above. I propose we revert until there's a clearer consensus. Powers ^(talk) 23:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case we should invite people to participate. Now we have three people (including the one doing the job) who think a separate page would be good and one thinking it is not. We will not get any clearer consensus without significantly more people voicing their opinion. --LPfi (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a separate page to contain detailed information is very useful, and I think the old template was getting a bit long, although I think too much may have been trimmed from the template with the latest changes. I would suggest restoring the list of countries that do not require a Visa to enter a Schengen country ("The nationals of the following countries do not need a visa...") since that's the information that will be of most importance to someone planning a visit, and the Schengen page can then provide more detailed info about such things as requirements for residents of Gibraltar and special rules for New Zealanders. In the template's current form, including it in an article like Iceland#Get in does not provide any information about entry requirements beyond noting that it is a Schengen country. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I would actually say that specifically the list of countries is the thing that should not be repeated in every article. A list presented in-line separated by commas is relly hard to make out and makes the entire paragraph hard to make out as well. It is so much better to say "for the detailed list of countries whose nationals do not need a visa, please see Schengen Agreement". If somebody is new to the whole concept of Schengen, it would be the best to refer them to the article and have them read it in its entirety, as one should know of all the caveats and not just be content that they don't need a visa. For somebody who has experienced Schengen, just the notice that the destination is within Schengen will be enough. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Does that interfere with our goal of having each guide be self-contained? Would we be leaving a traveler frustrated if he or she doesn't realize that the separate Schengen article also needs to be printed whenever visiting a Schengen country? Powers ^(talk) 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

When we tell our travellers that they can arrive by plane, we do not repeat all of the advice from our articles on Flying, much like we leave the details on using the country's railways or peculiarities of driving in a country to separate guides. A guide is self-contained, but not absolutely exhaustive. I also believe that a traveller printing out a country's article and immediately heading towards said country with just that guide in hand is an extremely unlikely occurence. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that this sort of information is included, as a standard, in all of our country articles. The reason this information is being split out is, apparently, only because it happens to be common to several different nations. That leaves Schengen-area countries with different levels of detail than non-Schengen. Powers ^(talk) 20:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I must have skipped this as too boring then when reading up on other countries :D At any rate, I always try to adapt a policy of avoiding including information that is of potentially significant consequences and may get outdated, as we do not have enough manpower dedicated to updating everything. Providing outdated information with regard to visa requirements, and especially informing the readers that they might travel without a visa, can cause them a lot of trouble should the situation change. I would rather we adopted a general policy of referring the reader to appropriate authorities with regard to that.

In terms of Schengen, the list of countries exempt from visa requirements should also be annotated with the need for caution and double-checking before committing to final travel plans. I believe our list should only be of auxilliary value and preferably grouped by clusters (e.g. NAFTA countries, candidate countries etc.) to signify how the visa policy generally works, and still caution time and time again to double-check, with appropriate links. Arriving at the gate without a valid visa when one is needed is one of the most dreadful experiences we could afford our readers, short of recommending them to go to Syria. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Schengen template

Swept in from the pub

Apparently the Schengen template still talks about "autumn 2015" as if it were recent news. Given that the Schengen Teamplate shows up in quite a handful of articles, this should be fixed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Go knock yourself out :) Template:Schengen

I don't really regard the Autumn 2015 as 'out of date', but if you can make it more relevant then so much the better. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well Fall 2015 is almost a year ago now. And apparently some of the then current suspensions of Schengen have been lifted (though I don't know if all of them and I also don't know where I could get that information)... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)