Talk:Visa requirements for Hungarian citizens

Overlinking vs. style consistency

While I fully understand the policy of WP:OVERLINKING I don't understand how the article is improved by randomly removing some of the links while leaving all the others? It causes the article style to be severely inconsistent and in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style which clearly states that Style and formatting should be consistent within an article.. And I understand that you may not be able to format an entire article but in that case I kindly ask you to refrain from making edits which violate MoS. Simply put, weighing the two options I would say having a consistent overly linked article is far better than having an article with inconsistent style, a bit overlinked a bit not. I am happy to hear your opinion on this subject BushelCandle.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not let the perfect be the enemy of incremental improvement to our articles

Your edit reveals a misunderstanding of how this project operates. We are all volunteers here and it is not a requirement that every edit we make is comprehensive and perfect. It is acceptable to make incremental improvements.

Your edits consistently seek to flout our policy at WP:OVERLINKING. You should take this discussion to that page and attempt to change the policy there if you don't like me making incremental improvements. (Good luck with that!)

How is it helpful to our readers to read a cryptic "ID card valid" and then have to click and go to another article entirely to discover that it's not just any old employer's ID card that's acceptable but only a Hungarian identity card?

How is it not overlinking to have dozens of the same identical piped link? None of my edits intentionally violate our MoS. If I only spot 21 examples of inconsistent date formats and miss another 5, it is completely unacceptable and disrespectful of your fellow editors to revert my 21 good edits on grounds that I have not done a complete job. No - what you should do is preserve the incremental improvement(s) and, if you have the time and inclination, go in yourself and correct the remaining formatting errors. You got blocked before for this kind of tendentious edit warring and I advise you to raise this issue at the appropriate MoS talk page and see if there is support for your idea that you will revert, with impunity and applause, each and every edit that only makes incremental - rather than total and complete - improvements to articles.

Now I do apologise if my tone comes over as minatory and hectoring, but I've really had it up to here this week with the Russians' mass reverts without you kicking off as well! --BushelCandle (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. While I agree that not every edit needs to be perfect or comprehensive, my point here is that your edit actually reduced the quality of the article. While overlinking is to be avoided and is one of many MoS rules, the MoS main principle laid out in MoS intro is - consistency. If we have one resolved issue - consistency and one unresolved issue - overlinking, we can't suddenly call it a good solution to keep the article overlinked, albeit to a lesser degree, but to also lose consistency in the same process. So to reiterate I have nothing against resolving the overlinking issue therefore I am not consistently seeking to flout our policy as you wrongly assume - but the game is not worth the candle if we lose consistency and therefore break the very core of WP:MOS at the same time. Notion of incremental improvements does not exist as such, if your edits neither resolve the overlinking nor take into account the WP:MOS rules then there is no improvement regardless of the hard work you put into it. I ask you kindly not to take this personally, it's a trial and error process and over time you will improve your skills I am sure of that, you just need a bit more patience, especially not to take it out on fellow editors when you've experienced issues with other users. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

USA visa waiver programm only for citizens born within Hungary

https://dailynewshungary.com/usa-visa-issue-because-of-criminals-fraudsters-non-hungarian-born-citizens-face-difficulties/?fbclid=IwAR0ajbyRzNX7n4IG5bPNMeZBmujjlxMhgfN2kpxTa4Df4i4vh3DvFh8Cih8

According to this article Hungarian citizens born outside Hungary are being denied the waive of visa to enter in the United States, having to apply for a visa at the embassies and consulates. It would be good to include this new condition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F0:BB41:4BFA:686C:1072:F3E3:EF4C (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if the author of the "Visa Requirements" map would change the colour of the U.S.A., in respects to the new travel conditions imposed by the authorities in Washington D.C. Adrian Ro.Hu (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The renewed hungarian ID.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)