Talk:Schengen Area

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schengen Area/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • Please fix the disambiguation link for Null. Done
   • Please fix the dead link "Stories from Schengen: Smuggling cigarettes in Schengen Slovakia". The link for "Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the Union, Guide on how to get the best out of Directive 2004/38/EC" no longer appears to connect to the correct page and also needs to be updated.  Done – – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
   • There are sections where lists are used and prose would be preferable. For example, the "The Schengen Agreement and the Schengen Convention" section, the "European Union Regulations" section and the "Legal basis of the Schengen rules" could be rewritten as prose. Done
   • Similarly, the frequent use of sub-headings impedes the readability of the article by presenting the information in a choppy fashion. I'd recommend reducing or entirely removing subheadings in the Territories of Schengen states outside the Schengen Area, Status of the European microstates, Regulation of internal borders, and Police and judicial co-operation sections.  Done but I can't sign myself here, because I did not do it.
   • The table showing current Schengen area countries could be revised to remove the largely unpopulated "exempted territories" column, shifting that information to the footer section. The information in those footers might look better in a separate Notes section at the bottom of the article.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   • Please remove the spaces before and after em-dashes (—).  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
   • Make sure there is consistency in the space between the p. and the number when citing page numbers.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   For example, sometimes you put "p.3" (no space) and sometimes "p. 3" (space). Choose one and be consistent. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, done that. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   • The article is not adequately cited. I'd recommend a reference at the end of each paragraph at minimum (and this only when that reference supports all the preceding information in the paragraph up to the previous ref provided).  Done all the tags. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am the nominator.

And I am leaving some comments too!

• As far as I know, there are 6 criteria, not 5. Pass/Fail should be listed as 7. Please see WP:WIAGA.  Done

• The formatting seems to have been disrupted in the list above, but all required criteria are there. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Removing the spaces after m dashes, that is a personal preference. Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, point Number 1.  Done

• Please consult the more relevant section of the Manual of Style. There are no spaces around the em dash, but there are spaces around the en dash. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• From WP:WIAGA: (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, Second point: Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages. Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• It would have taken you less time to just improve the article by removing the spaces and bringing it into compliance with the MOS than by arguing with me. Do you care more about the quality of the article or having a little GA symbol at the top of it? Nobody said I'm going to fail the article if you don't comply with my suggestions, but frankly when you argue back with me about every little suggestion it makes me not want to bother volunteering my time to review them. Please understand that the review process is voluntary for the nominator and reviewer alike, and is meant to strengthen the quality of the content on Wikipedia. Most nominators are eager to make improvements to the article under review regardless of whether it's GA or FA. Your cooperation when the requests are not unreasonable helps to keep this voluntary system operating to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• From WP:WIAGA: 6: Illustrated, if possible, by images.  Done

Your version: "Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?"

Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(6) Appropriately illustrated First sentence of it.

• Please don't get hung up on the phrasing of that point in this template (which another very experienced reviewer created and which is frequently copied and used by myself and others on this site). I'm an experienced reviewer and editor here and know that a lack of images is no reason to fail an article when no relevant images are available. And you have images, anyway, so you don't need to be concerned about that. But I may tweak the wording in this template to avoid arousing concerns in the future. Thank you for bringing your observation to my attention. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• You said to fix the dead link. Please see: WP:Link rot#Keeping dead links  Done

• What you need to do is let me know whether the page is truly dead, in which case the link can be kept. However, in the case where the url has merely changed, it simply needs to be updated and archived. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• You said that the page is in a choppy fashion. Would you like it if all the page were one long, boring page without sub-headings?

Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, last point.

• I'm telling you that at times it's not easy to read as written because the text is broken up quite a lot. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, but the purpose of a peer review is to get an outside opinion on whether the article meets the standards of GA. I'm providing you that feedback here so that the article can communicate the information as effectively as possible to a wide audience, which I'm sure you want. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• You want more citations. Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable Mistakes to avoid, Second point.

• Here I can agree with you. I was incorrect to ask for references to back up all the content of the article, although doing so would enable your readers to educate themselves more completely about this topic you are clearly so interested in. But for GA, Wikipedia has set a low minimum standard for citations, which you certainly have the right to meet and not exceed at this stage. I'm sure you'll do it well if/when you decide to take this article to FA. All that being said, the article is still inadequately referenced per the GA criteria. I've provided indications where a citation is needed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• How come inadequately referenced per WP:WIAGA? From WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable Mistakes to avoid, second point in the brackets.:

Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Because all statistics need to be cited, even per GA's minimum standards. I indicated where there was a statistic that needed to be cited using the tag. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, then we got that cleared up... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 14:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, what would be helpful is if you could tell me how you approached the citations in this article. And did you provide most/all of them, or were many added by other reviewers? There's a certain lack of consistency and if that wasn't your intention we could look at it together. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• I actually didn't do any significant work on this article, just a spelling mistake from time to time; all the work was done by other reviewers, I just nominated it. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• That explains a lot. Normally the primary contributor nominates the article. You'll want to identify that person and leave him or her a note on his/her talk page to notify that the article is under review. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• And don't say that this is not official. This was in WP:WIAGA#See also.
• And last, but not least... From the intro of WP:WIAGA:

A good article is a satisfactory article that has met the good article criteria but may not have met the criteria for featured articles. The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.

This is to be a Good article, not a Featured article.

I hope that this will help you and change your comments.

See also

• WP:Good article criteria
• WP:What the Good article criteria are not

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and also, please use the GA review cheat sheet for easier reading and leave ANY comments in the comments section. Remember that you leave your comments after my ones. User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet for the GA review cheat sheet.

Also, this cheat sheet help info is not official. I personally use the cheat sheet, but not the helping info in it.

Remember: Always keep the officials (WP:WIAGA, WP:What the Good article criteria are not and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles

Thanks, – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Now, since we got most of the stuff cleared up, I have to ask, is everything on this page REALLY neutral? – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

Well, since the neutrality of this review is being questioned and there appears to be an element of "barrack room lawyering", I will review it in full. I will leave sentencing to the primary reviewer. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing this section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

Ok, that is fine, it will leave us, (me and primary contributor) less work to do at a time... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• History -

• The first paragraph is vague. It states at the start: "The Schengen Area came in existence on 26 March 1995 when the Schengen Agreement along with its implementing convention was implemented by the five original signatories ..." "along with Portugal and Spain who signed subsequently" and then "Italy and Austria joined during 1997". So when did Portugal and Spain sign?  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• The final paragraph of the first sentence is unnecessarily vague. The statement "With the Treaty of Amsterdam, the agreement became part of the acquis communautaire of the EU in 1999." is followed by "After the accession of Greece in 2000, the countries comprising the Nordic Passport Union...followed in 2001.". This appears to suggest that: (1) the Nordic Passport Union followed Greece into the EU, (2) Greece joined the acquis communautaire in 2000 and The Nordic Passport Union followed in 2001, (3) Greece joined the Schengen Area in 2000 and The Nordic Passport Union followed in 2001. Who did what, when and let's have a reference for the claims?

But, where is that? It is not in Schengen Area#History. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have reviewed the version that existed on 13 September 2011. This [diff] shows the changes that have occurred since then. I tend to review corrective actions using Firefox (Windows works as well, but I don't use it) with at least three tabs open: the version of the article that I reviewed, the /GA1 page, the current version of the article and often the reference open (if its a web page). Reviewing is not particularly easy if it is done in any depth, but that is not a valid reason for not reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Membership -  Done

• This first paragraph seems to be a repeat of the History section. All twenty five counties are listed, all the stuff about The Nordic Passport Union is repeated (and wikilinked) - why its WP:OVERLINKING, on my screen there is about 3.5 cm between the two Nordic Passport Union.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• There is a comment in the first paragraph: "De facto, the Schengen Area also includes several microstates that maintain open or semi-open borders with Schengen countries.". This needs an explanation and, as its not obvious, a citation is needed. - Note this is covered later in the article so perhaps a note to that effect might be sufficient. Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)  Done Cited and all, so no problems with that one – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• The second paragraph is unreferenced.  Done – One sentence paragraph, so one reference needed. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Current -  Done

• Looks OK.

• • Prospective -

• This subsection has an outdated box dated September 2011.
• Ref 9, used twice, states that Cyprus will not join before 2010. Well we are now three quarters the way through 2011. Did they join and if not, what's the situation?

• This issue has now been fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Territories of Schengen states outside the Schengen Area -  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Since the title of the article is Schengen Area, the phrase "Schengen Area" should not be used in the section title.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• There is an abbreviation, non-EEA nations, that is undefined. Presumably there is an EEA, it should be defined?  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• A citation is needed for the claim: "France also has several territories which are neither part of the EU nor the Schengen Area.".  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• The third paragraph about Dutch territories needs a citation or citations.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regulation of internal borders -

• I don't believe that the final paragraph fully reflects the complexity of "VAT". Europe does not appear to have imposed standardised rates of VAT, so for instance there are limits within the EU for the quantities of alcohol and tobacco (cigarettes, cigars, etc) that can be brought across the boarders of some internal countries. Any person bringing significantly more than the "so-called limit for personal consumption" into the UK (from Europe and/or from outside Europe) would be likely to face criminal charges for smuggling and evasion of tax. A company moving these items for commercial/retail sale would need the correct documentation, as would transfers between Europe and EFTA countries. Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree this issue should be addressed by a knowledgeable contributor. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think that this issue belongs into the article, as it does not have anything to do with Schengen internal or external borders. This does not have too much to do with borders and border control, but rather with taxation, which is not regulated by Schengen rules (although by EU law). It is correct that different VAT rates may be imposed by the EU Member States, albeit the general VAT rules are harmonized. For intra-EU movements, the rule of thumb is that commercial purchases are Value Added Taxed in the state of the recipient, while private purchases (with the notable exemption of new cars) are taxed in the state of purchase. The same applies to other taxes, as on spirits, beer, or tobacco products. In case of a commercial purchase, the supplier has to know the VAT ID of the recipient, has to report the transaction with that ID to his own state's tax agency, and the commercial purchaser has to declare the purchase and pay VAT in his own state. The transaction reports are regularly exchanged between the EU Member States through a central data exchange maintained by the EU, while private purchases remain anonymous. Nothing at all will be handled at the border. The only purpose of the "limit for personal consumption" is to separate the two sets of cases and procedures by shifting the burden of proof. To take your example - if a UK consumer can provide proof that he takes a huge amount - beyond the limit for private consumption - of beer and wine from France to the UK for personal purposes, e.g. to host 3,000 guests in his home at a garden party, he would still only have to pay French and not UK taxes. Nevertheless, there are no instituted taxation procedures established at any EU internal border. At manned borders, as at the Channel Tunnel, security and other officials, of course, are not obliged to turn a blind eye on suspicious movements of goods, and may well file reports to taxation authorities, or even seize goods if the have reason to believe that taxes are being evaded. From a practical perspective, it would be advisable for the said UK citizen to notifiy the taxation authorities of the planned import in advance of the actual movement of goods, to convince them that the import will be private, and to carry some official letter in order to convince security staff at the border that the movement is not carried out in a clandestine manner, and that some competent authority is dealing with it, whatever would be the outcome. However, any search, control, and seizure of goods at an internal EU border is no ordinary procedure connected with crossing a border, but a procedure which any constable would have to initiate on the same suspicion in the heart of London, as well. --DanSchultz (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Controversies -
    • Danish customs controls -

• Ref 49 is not fully cited. The publisher and the author are unnamed.
• Ref 51. Blogs are not usually regarded as reliable sources, however this is a blog by a Commissioner of the EEC on an EEC web site. As such it is not properly cited: only the date and title is given. The author and publisher are missing.
• Same comments apply to refs 52 & 53.

These points cannot be fulfilled it the author/publisher/date are not listed on the page. Just noting. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the date of my review: work has been done on the article so the ref numbers have changed. Ref 49 is now 55, 51 is now 58, etc (see my comment above in History). The "missing" information is provided on the four web sites, it's just that the editor(s) who added the references did not correctly reference the four citations.

Ref 62 is not fully cited. The publisher and the author are unnamed. Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• The issues identified by Pyrotec above have not been resolved. The editor(s) will need to fix the citations here before the article can be awarded GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regulation of external borders -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)  Not done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Entry conditions for third-country nationals -

• Here it states: "Border guards are required to stamp the travel documents of third-country nationals ..... , aircraft crew members or seamen are exempt from this requirement and their travel documents should not be stamped.[71]. What the reference actually states: (Not to stamp) pilot's licences or the certificates of aircraft crew members, travel documents of seamen who are present in the territory of a member state only when the ship calls in and in the area of the port of call, to the travel documents of crew and passengers of cruise ships who are not subject to boarder checks in those cases provided for in Point 2, Section IV." This is Not a particularly accurate summary, i.e. what is claimed in the article is not fully supported by the citation.

• This issue needs to be resolved before the article can be awarded GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Stays in excess of three months -

• The first paragraph is unreferenced and is therefore not verifiable.
• Ref 74, 75 and 76 are not fully cited: no publisher is given; at least two are dated, but no publication dates are given.

• These issues need to be resolved. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Police and judicial co-operation -

• Most of this section, five subsection out of seven, is unreferenced and is therefore unverifiable.

• I agree that additional citations would strengthen the article and particularly to enable readers and reviewers to verify the contents. Much of the content of this article lies outside the realm of "common sense" and so could be considered debatable content requiring additional referencing. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Legal basis of the Schengen rules -  Done

• The text looks OK, however since the title of the article is Schengen Area, the phrase "Schengen Area" should not be used in the section title.

I oppose to this one, as it is Schengen, not the full phrase 'Schengen Area' – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I will clarify/re-phrase my comment: words used in the article's title should not be used in the section titles unless (there is a get out clause: it's clearer) (See WP:HEAD. "Schengen" appears in the article's title so it should not appear in the section titles (unless it's clearer). The section could be titled "Legal basis", "Legal basis of rules". You can object if you like but "it is Schengen, not the full phrase 'Schengen Area' –" is not a valid basis for objecting. The only valid objection is that the section title is clear when Schengen appears in the section title. Decision for lead reviewer, to take. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, it is fixed. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. Arguably, it does both. Its possibly a bit "thin" as a summary but not sufficiency so to raise a corrective action.

• The article would be strengthened by expanding the lead, but I agree it isn't necessary to attain GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Images -  Done

• Suitably labelled and with copyright statements.

Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Pyrotec. I'm in the process of moving overseas in the next few days and things have been a little hectic. Your detailed comments will be a great help in improving this article and moving the review toward completion. I'll check back in a day or so to see whether the nominator has addressed these points. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Lemurbaby, I hope the move overseas goes well. I'm in Europe with no computer access, rather the the UK, for much of what is left of September so I'm trying to close off in the next few days two GANs reviews that I'm placed On Hold. That's why I was intending to leave the decision on pass/fail/hold to you as lead reviewer (it's your call anyway), but I will be back on wikipedia in October. Pyrotec (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• The edits to the prose have created some new problems in terms of style, clarity and grammar. I'd like to see this article undergo a copy edit by a neutral third party. I'd also like to see the nominator address the remaining points Pyrotec raised above, particularly in regards to the sections where no citations are provided. Since this information does not fall into the "common sense" category and could be contested by a reader, providing a source to allow readers to verify will contribute to the quality of the article. I will put the article on hold until the copy edit and remaining revisions above can be completed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• • In light of the non-action of editors in line with the suggestions identified above over the past two weeks, I cannot award GA at this time. Much hard work has been done in this review process and I thank you both, Pyrotec and Plarem, for your contributions to improving the article. I hope it will be renominated once it's gone through a copy edit, ideally a peer review as well, and the issues identified above have been addressed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Labelled map

Why is the UK listed as "outside (EU)" on the map?

Odd, I thought the UK was a member, but of course not part of Schengen. Bolegash (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The map does not say anything about the EU, only inside Schengen Area, and future Schengen members. --BIL (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"outside (EU)" is meant to be short for in the EU but outside Schengen, but it's obviously fairly confusing. The older image label was "EU member states outside Schengen". I'll revert. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it was confusing, and now that Liechtenstein has joined, the number of label types could be decreased. Anyway, I increased the sizes of the explanatory labels at the bottom again, and did some other fiddling with the labels. Actually, I'll just copy my edit summary here: increased size of explanatory labels; changed text colour of "Set to implement later" label to black; improved positioning of some country labels; abbreviated "Switzerland" and "Liechtenstein" labels; added explanation of latter to explanatory labels. Teemu Leisti (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly fail to see what was wrong with a line break in "Switz- erland", "Liech." as an abbreviation for Liechtenstein, or which an image legend with the same font size as the labels. What's so wrong with the now reverted version of the template that needs changing? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have Switzerland and Liechtenstein consistent. "Switz." and "Liech." or "Switz-br-erland" and "Liech-br-enstein". I'd opt for the former. It's a clickable template, after all. CMD (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong was that the name labels were huge in comparison to the area of country as represented on the map. Perhaps you would also like to change "Lux." to "Luxembourg" on the map? For my part, I fail to see what was wrong with making the text of the explanatory labels bigger for improved legibility. I also fail to see what was wrong with adjusting some of the label positions on the map, so as to unhide countries where possible, as in the cases of Slovenia and Cyprus. Instead of reverting all the edits someone else has made because you dislike one or two of the changes, it might be more productive to undo those specific changes you disagree with? You might at least have preserved my change of making the text colour of the "Set to implement later" label black, for (a) better legibility, and (b) to match the text colour of the labels on the map. Teemu Leisti (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see that you brought back a couple of the changes I did. I made the "Set to implement later" label's text black. Perhaps this is a compromise we can all live with? Teemu Leisti (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Candidate countries shown on both maps?

Originally titled "Future Members" and "Funny future members"

map of the EU article - no candidates

map of the NATO article - no candidates

Referring to Romania and Bulgaria, we don't know what future brings, you mean candidate? according to the EU, there is no candidate status in Schengen membership. They just give decisions in EU meetings to let them in or not. As far as I remember, France blocked Romania entrance last year, so it's an error to conclude that they are really future members. Even if they become a member, why do we show them on the main map of Schengen Area? .. For instance, on the article of EU, they don't show candidate countries on the main map. Wikipedia only shows the members of NATO on NATO article, EU members on EU article. Another thing is, Cyprus doesn't even have any intention to join Schengen. Croatia does. But Croatia is grey and Cyprus is green. Can anyone explain this? I propose to change the main map to existant Schengen members only ----Camoka4 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the entry into Schengen is part of their accession agreement to the European Union (the Schengen acquis). The moment this is factually realized is however not the moment of entry into the EU, but some later moment. They (Ro, Bg, Cy) do therefore have a status which is legally closer to the area than other countries and showing them on the map makes sense. I am open however to other indications instead of "candidate".... L.tak (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they aren't just candidate countries, their EU accession treaties legally oblige them to join the Schengen Zone. Croatia's accession treaty hasn't been ratified yet, but once it has a legally binding agreement to join Schengen we can colour it green as well. I agree that it would be better to label these states as "Legally obliged to join" or something else better than "Future members". TDL (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ro, Bg and Cyprus should be kept out of the first map completely (like NATO, EU and ASEAN article examples), in the second map you can give details about them "legally obliged to join in the future" or something. The first map should be smooth and clean about the current members. UK was kicked out of the first map too.--Camoka4 (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Camoka4's wrong when it comes to comparing the Schengen Area to the EU, NATO or ASEAN. Bulgaria and Romania are not candidate countries for Schengen. They have legally signed up to it, they're just awaiting technical approval and operate the Schengen visa list. This notwithstanding, I've no problem with removing both countries from the first map. They are, in any event, shown in the second map. It makes a certain amount of sense to just to show the Schengen Area and this is the reason we removed the colouring from Ireland and the UK. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

TDL, in any case, it doesn't make any sense to show them in the first map, since we have the second map to explain this all. It was the reason why UK and Ireland were removed from the first map. I'm excluding Romania Bulgaria and Cyprus from the first map until they effectively join Schengen Area. If they show candidate countries in the first map, why do we have the second map for? Camoka4 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they can be dispensed off in view of the second image. Still prefer the one with the "prospective" members though in view of the legal requirement. I will not undue the change therefore, but please be a bit more patient when introducing changes; there was no clear consensus yet when you did! L.tak (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi L.tak, I think everyone here agrees that the main map should only include current full members. Thank you for helping to solve this issue. --Camoka4 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who?! You want to remove them. I'm ambivalent. L.tak and TDL are against. That not consensus. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

now reverted in view of the clear lack of consensus and because the change as it was implemented (by changing the image) affected over 10 language versions...). L.tak (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Other languages have already been changed regarding the topic. Schengen Area main map will be implemented as NATO and EU. --Camoka4 (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make it sound like a fact, but obtain consensus. I operate according to the Bold, revert, discuss cycle (that is: you are bold, which is good, I revert, which is good as well, and then we discuss, which is great). While that is happening, please do not re-add your change, your changes but see if there is consensus. I think Blue Haired Lawyer was quite clear here that it wasn't there! !!!! (my link to WP:BRD) L.tak (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you know/understand English? THE FIRST MAP is Schengen members only (example I posted NATO map, EU map). THE SECOND MAP ALREADY includes the EU outside Schengen countries, Schengen countries outside EU, pending members, etc, the things you want. It has been doing fine over a few days, so it's nothing new anymore. Regarding other languages, (btw I see you are trying to change the subject) , they have already adjusted to this change. Please stop acting like a lunatic, and behave. Thank you. --Camoka4 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Camoka4, please re-read the discussion above. There is no consensus to make the changes you are pushing for. I suggest reading WP:BRD for an explanation of how the editing process works here on Wikipedia. Until you get a consensus on the talk page to make the changes, L.tak is following the proper editing procedures in reverting your edits. Also, please read WP:NPA. Your personal attacks are not helpful to the discussion. TDL (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi TDL, I tried to talk with L.tak to understand his concerns, but he seems to be non-responsive although I know he has read my messages. What should I do now?--Camoka4 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You should self-revert to the consensus version before your changes were made and continue the discussion here. Barring that you are likely to be blocked for edit warring. TDL (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would self-revert if L.tak would respond to my messages on his talk page. He reads but doesn't answer, (same for TDL) which means he doesn't have a good faith. Regarding your last comment, you are more focused about other user's ban (obviously very happy about it too) but can't bring any argument against the change, the question arises: What can you do when the other side keeps vandalizing and keeps silent on talk page. This has been the longest talk topic of this article ever, no argument has been brought about why we should not make the edits I proposed. I am interested to understand the concerns, I am here to listen. But there is no-one writing any argument, except the user TDL writes complaint letters and gets happy about possible banning mechanisms. There is definetely an attitude problem here.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Which means he doesn't have good faith"? See WP:AAGF. Also, you've made the edit seven times today, and it's been reverted each time by multiple editors; L.tak isn't the only one that's disagreeing with the edit, which means that L.tak isn't the only one to discuss this with. L.tak's points above are sound, and although I'm sure you believe that you refuted these points, the consensus seems to be that this is not the case (a consensus which I agree with). Ask for your question about vandalizing: see WP:NOTVAND. I don't see a single instance of vandalism here, a disagreement over content is not vandalism. - SudoGhost 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, L.tak is the user that disagrees with the edit, because there was no problem for a few days first. The other users started to jump in when they saw the edit war. The problem is L.tak doesn't give any argument and he doesn't seem to respond my messages on his talk page, although he reads them. The thing is there is no argument against the change.How do you explain that? I Think there are more things going on behind the scenes. --Camoka4 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't give any argument? Read this discussion again then. Not acknowledging a comment doesn't mean it isn't there, and it's very, very obvious that L.tak isn't the only user that disagrees with the edit. - SudoGhost 23:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a qoute from Blue-Haired Lawyer ....This notwithstanding, I've no problem with removing both countries from the first map. They are, in any event, shown in the second map. It makes a certain amount of sense to just to show the Schengen Area and this is the reason we removed the colouring from Ireland and the UK. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:10, Sudo, do you know english? I know he disagrees the edit, I said I don't know where is he when I invited him to solve his concerns? he READS my comments but doesn't reply. Maybe I could find a solution with him if he had replied indeed. Did he hire you to debate on talk page? Where is he? --Camoka4 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If all you have is personal attacks, we're done here. From what I can see, your edit has been rejected by consensus. - SudoGhost 00:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you read all the debate and say all you see is personal attacks, you must go to a doctor.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack sounds a bit strong, but the definition is wide here (please read Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F). What is meant with this are arguments ad hominem (and they never help . ad hominem 1: "do you read English?", ad hominem 2: suggestion that Sudo was "hired" to edit here and didn't edit due to his own standpoint, ad hominem 3: the addition "then you should go to a doctor"; ad hominem 4: suggesting someone would be happy if you are banned). Please stick to the arguments, not the the persons, and if the consensus is not on your side, Drop the stick and pursue something else... L.tak (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidate or Future member or Legally bound to join

Blue haired lawyer I opened a new chapter for you regarding the name of Ro and Bg. I am also against calling Romania and Bulgaria as "future candidates". Everyone is kindly invited to share his/her opinion at the subject. --Camoka4 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think candidate doesn't do, as it "failing/not joining" (a possibility for a candidate) is not allowed because of the Acquis requirements. What about: "Future enlargement"? Other ideas are welcome! L.tak (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How about “Pending members”? —Volgar (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia or FYROM

There is another edit war for Macedonia and FYROM, I wonder which one should be used in the article.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's obvious we're discussing countries, we simply use "Macedonia". CMD (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Border checks resumed.

According to news sources, borders check between Schengen countries are resumed. Should we add something to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.251.57 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus removal (cleaner first map)

Hello, I am removing Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus from the first map. I KNOW they are obliged to join legally some time later, BUT we should add them to the first map only AFTER they really join, until then we should only show CURRENT members in the first map. We have the second map for them already if someone wants to know all the "future members", and the countries that are in the EU but not in Schengen (Ireland, UK). --Camoka4 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have no consensus for that removal and if you continue to do it on Commons without one you may be blocked. If you do not like the green, please get consensus. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this, and the consensus is against this edit. I don't see additional reasoning that wasn't present before, unless there's some additional reasoning, or some sudden change in consensus, I don't think there's any reason for this change. - SudoGhost 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been no convincing arguments presented for the removal of Ro, Bg and Cy from the map. I still oppose their removal. TDL (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the edit suggestion for the reasons stated above. I like to see them in the first map due to their significance after signing up for the Schengen Acquis. L.tak (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I respect L.tak's arguments against the edit. Regarding, Sudoghost, Fry, and TDL: They are close buddies who are in touch with eachother. Even the timing is 1:04 and 1:05 respectively. It's obvious they are chatting on an external chat messenger to manipulate wikipedia discussions. This situation must be investigated.--Camoka4 (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious allegation. Unless you're willing to provide some evidence, I strongly recommend that you strike it out. bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner, I haven't seen you before here, suddenly you jump in to the discussion to defend them. Tell your friends to keep their recommendations for themselves. You guys are manipulators and organized vandal groups. I will not comment anymore in this biased talk page. --Camoka4 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)