Talk:Visa policy of the Schengen Area

Travel document requirement
Regarding the entry requirements for Annex II nationals, I have deleted the requirement to 'have a machine-readable passport with digital photo or a biometric passport'. I cannot find any reference to this in Article 6 of the Schengen Borders Code, nor in the Practical Handbook for Border Guards in Part II, Section I, Point 3.1. Article 6(1)(a) simply states that a third-country national has to possess a 'valid travel document' that was issued no more than 10 years ago and is valid for at least 3 months beyond the intended date of departure. If, however, I have missed the reference to this requirement, please feel free to reverse my edit. Thanks. Bonus bon (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Croatia's accession to Schengen
Since Croatia was added to the Schengen area, the maps need to be updated. Any information in the article which categorises Croatia with BG, RO, or CY should be edited appropriately. Also, the Euler diagram should be altered. 31.208.29.4 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think everything is updated now. Feel free to correct any instances that may have been missed. Heitordp (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposals for visa exemptions before 2019
I put the older proposals for visa exemptions in a collapsed box because they don't seem to be under consideration anymore. If you don't want the box, I think that it's better to remove them from the article altogether. Heitordp (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That's not true- the EU is still exploring options for visa facilitation with some of those countries (like Armenia/ see ). Archives908 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So the countries that are still under consideration should be updated with a more recent source and year, but I think that the others should be removed. Heitordp (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But as long as the Commission has not retracted its proposal, there is still a proposal, however old it is. --Nablicus (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly- there isn't deadlines for these... If a proposal has been officially withdrawn, then that country/countries could be moved to a "Former" sub-section. Otherwise, they are all still technically valid unless WP:RS confirms otherwise. Archives908 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Turkish e-visa for nationals of Cyprus
This source from the Turkish government, which was cited in the article, says "Greek Cypriot Administration: Ordinary and official passport holders are required to have visa to enter Türkiye. Both official and ordinary passport holders may obtain their 30-day single-entry e-Visas via the website www.evisa.gov.tr." The Turkish e-visa website also lists "Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus" as one of the eligible countries. The Greek Cypriot Administration is the Republic of Cyprus, also known simply as Cyprus. The Turkish government refers to it this way due to the Cyprus dispute.

Governments are the most reliable sources about their own visa policies. So the sentence "Turkey also requires visas from nationals of EU member state Cyprus, which may be obtained electronically." is correctly supported by the reliable sources cited above. It's an objective, neutral and relevant statement, so I think that it should be restored to the article. Alternatively, a simpler sentence could be "Turkey also requires electronic visas from nationals of EU member state Cyprus." Do you agree? Heitordp (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes- I agree. However, "Turkey also requires visas from nationals of EU member state Cyprus" is already how it is worded in the article. So are you suggesting to keep the status quo then? Archives908 (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I suggest changing this sentence to:
 * Turkey also requires visas from nationals of EU member state Cyprus, which may be obtained electronically.
 * or:
 * Turkey also requires electronic visas from nationals of EU member state Cyprus.
 * I underlined the additions here for clarity, but they wouldn't be underlined in the article. Heitordp (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The second option seems more clean to me. Archives908 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But I won't oppose either. Archives908 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)