Talk:Hungarian passport

Fair use rationale for Image:Hungary passport 1938.jpg
Image:Hungary passport 1938.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Visa Free list
I would like to know if someone could do the visa free lists to hungarian passports, because I dont know how or where to get the information to do it, and i would really like to know where can hungarians go visa free. I would like to do a list like it is on the UK Passport, if someone knows how to do it and wants, please, and if no i would like to get a page where i can get the info so I can do it. This is aimed to improve Wiki`s information data.--Philip200291 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! --Maxval (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Philip

from 2009 january to travel to Botswana is Visa free for Hungarian citizens. Please check the website of the Foreign Affairs of Hungary. http://www.kulugyminiszterium.hu/kum/en/bal/consular_services/Entry_of_Foreigners_to_Hungary/visa_exemption/visa_waiver_agreements.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.203.68 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear 89.134.203.68: I checked every source i could, International visa pages such as the one that can be found on delta.com, also pages that say which countries require visas and botswanian pages that also state that Hungarians need visas, so it seems that the hungarian foreign affairs page has that one wrong, I will revert your edit, and if you find a source other than the mfa page, please notify me and then we can edit the page, thank you. --Philip200291 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert
I did an update to the list. I added data and corrected data. Why do you delete? --Maxval (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I wont revert, I will correct the data again. Please dont delete this time without a reason. --Maxval (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * NOW LIST IS FULLY UP TO DATE! --Maxval (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

British Embassy to Vizuminfo.hu and I also called them! A Brit Nagykövetség tájékoztatása szerint Botswana feloldotta a magyar állampolgárokkal szembeni vízumkényszert. További információ: www.vizuminfo.hu Külügyminisztérium Konzuli Főosztály: (36)1 458-1000

Visa free travel
There is a long-standing consensus that this topic and associated graphics is treated at its own article page with links only at the 'See also' section. This consensus relating to all passport articles was reached after long and occasionally acrimonious centralised debate. The consensus, and preceding discussion can be found here. RashersTierney (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the consensus at all on what you are suggesting. There seems to have been a consensus reached not to include these long tables on specific visa requirements conditions in passport articles but to rather have them in separate articles. That is still the case as far as I can tell, and no one tried to change that as it makes sense to have the articles split. However this in no way means that information on the number of countries that can be visited visa-free is somehow banned from passport articles. Plus, most importantly, no consensus deep inside the archived talk page of one article can supersede the Summary style. It clearly stipulates that split-off articles are linked with a short summary and linked via exactly as I've done it. Your view that the link for split-off articles can be placed "only at the 'See also' section" is nothing more than your personal singular view at this point and in no accordance with current Wikipedia rules (which, granted, may have been different in 2010 when the supposed consensus took place).


 * Additionally if that is not clear enough you can find a clear step-by-step guide on Splitting that has this point:


 * 1) Replace the section of the original article with the summary, add "  " (use the order: image, main tag, text). If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the "See" template instead of the "Main" template.  If necessary (where there is an image, but only a short paragraph of text) add "  " to the end.  Use the edit summary "Material WP:SPLIT to  New article name  " and save the edit.


 * If you wish to change that, you are free to make proposals. Until then, I've done nothing against the rules, on contrary, I've followed them to the letter.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What you have done is to ignore an agreement as to how 'visa free travel' articles and passport articles are to be linked. A centralised discussion took place as hundreds of articles were at issue. The initial discussion took place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)(Removing the "visa-free travel" blocks in passport articles). It was moved by an admin to the Passport TP at Removing the "visa-free travel" blocks in passport articles. As you can see, the result of the discussion was Support for the proposal. The 'visa-free travel' blocks were duly removed from all passport articles, new 'Visa-free travel' articles were created and linked as agreed and the articles split per the guidelines that pertained at the time. This was a tedious process, but agreed to by the participating editors. If you wish to challenge that consensus which affects hundreds of articles, then the onus is on you to re-open a centralised discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The link you just provided is quite obviously an agreement to split articles, by removing the "visa-free travel" blocks in passport articles (as the title of it says). What we are discussing here has nothing to do with that. No one is inserting visa-free travel blocks to passport articles.

What we are talking about is mere summary linking to split articles.

And the rules on how to do that are clear - summary section, image file, main template, summary text. No see also section, no nothing that you talk about, but pure and simple - summary section, image file, main template, summary text - that's it. You can't challenge that, but instead of saying "oh OK didn't know about that, sorry about all this" you completely ignore it and continue to scold me. And as a proof that I am not making this up I gave you a specific link (not some broad discussions) - Splitting and you can read more broadly about summaries here Summary_style. It took me less than a minute to find these adopted official Wikipedia rules, so I am not sure why do you insist that some unrelated discussion can supersede them. Anyway rules are the rules, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't scold me for duly applying them. And your comments are not even relevant as the discussion you point out never had "how to split and link articles" as it's discussion object.

And yeah I've nothing against the reached decision nor am I trying to change it. However as noted, the decision you refer to is unrelated to my edits. My edits are merely about the article summary and linking per Wikipedia rules, while the discussion you pointed out is about the location of the particular content - visa-free tables. I repeat, I am not challenging the consensus you linked to on anything, I agree where the articles are placed.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is more than an agreement about splitting these articles, but also about how this was to be done. The choice discussed was whether to cut these sections and consign them to the bin, or retain them in some form. How the articles were to be linked was integral to the agreement. The reason is simple. One of the major objections to the visa blocks inclusion was the disproportionate impact these peripheral (at best) graphics have on passport articles. Because these graphics are world maps they must be large to have any 'informational value', otherwise they are just visual noise, as is currently the case. That is why it was agreed to link using text at the 'See also' sections. Unless you are implying that the articles were incorrectly split (they weren't), pointing to the current guideline is irrelevant. As I said, you are free to open a centralised discussion, most appropriately at Talk:Passport, where the current consensus was decided, if you wish to test if consensus has changed. RashersTierney (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't see that in the agreement. I see you are saying that this was an agreement but I don't read it there. What I can read though is Splitting and Summary_style which are more than clear and my edits are in full accordance with them. I still fail to understand even if you were right why do you think this is such a big deal, and now after I've realized (and more importantly after I've politely and patiently informed you of the rules in force) that I haven't broken any rules, your cantankerous attitude makes even less sense. It's completely nonsensical for someone to be creating a big deal and argument out of this, but OK that is your choice. And I am not implying articles were incorrectly split in 2010 (if you check the version of the rules from 2010 those points indeed did not exist back then), but I am saying they are NOT linked in accordance with splitting and summary style rules valid in December 2013. Even if we were to accept your argument about maps and their size it would hardly explain removal of whole section and summary text as you've done.

Anyway, you are free to open a centralised discussion, most appropriately at Wikipedia talk:Summary style, where the current rules were decided, if you wish to test if they can be changed. Until then, rules are in force, they can't be altered on talk pages of individual articles, and I ask you to respect that. I have no interest in wasting any further energy on this, I am here to write articles and not to argue about irrelevant stuff.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue of 'splitting' articles is a blatant red-herring. By your own admission this procedure was carried out correctly. No-one is now splitting articles. I have pointed you to the long discussion that resulted in the consensus method of relating these topics. In summary, 1) the 'visa-free travel' blocks (essentially the maps you are reintroducing) were removed from all 'X passport' articles, 2} this content was moved to newly created 'Visa requirements for x citizens' articles, 3} the new articles were then linked at the 'See also' sections of the corresponding passport articles and vice versa. You have chosen unilaterally to simply ignore this long-standing consensus after it has been brought to your attention. I am asking you to restore the multiple articles you have changed to their status quo ante and, if you wish, take the issue up where it was previously agreed in the coarse of a long and difficult centralised discussion, ie Talk:Passport. RashersTierney (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You said - "'visa-free travel' blocks (essentially the maps you are reintroducing". And my question is what are you doing? Where do you think such comments are going to take this discussion? Visa free travel blocks are large tables not images of any kind. Please don't do this. OK? Thank you. My edits are purely style related, and your points 1 and 2 are completely unrelated to my edits.

As for the rest, just because it was carried out correctly in 2010, does not mean it's set in stone. Wikipedia is evolving, it's rules are changing, and in 2013 there are rules that envisage a certain style for articles that we all have to follow. If you don't like those rules, they aren't set in stone either. Go and propose their change.

I've read recently that Wikipedia is having issues regarding updating it's content, and attracting "fresh blood", new editors and new vigor. The activity peaked several years ago and is now 1/3 behind. I am here trying to change that, updating all these articles, getting them in line with time and rules and you are bullying me for it?

My edits are 100% in line with 2013 rules set here - Splitting, if you don't like that then it is your problem and if you think I should dig out some old discussion from 2010, which doesn't even say what you say it says then you are wrong. I have no intention of violating Wikipedia rules therefore I have to decline your request to do that exactly. I ask you to refrain from rule breaking and to be a productive editor instead of trying to cement these articles in 2010 and to stop trying to impose an embargo on article expansion.

Please follow the simple rules set out in Splitting and Summary style and please stop wasting my time on this nonsense, that I would otherwise spend on upgrading articles. If your time on Wikipedia is best spent by bullying users who are contributing and following the rules then please take it somewhere else because I am not interested.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Summary section style
Does the point #14 of Splitting and in broader sense Summary style apply to this and other passport articles? I am referring to split-out articles on Visa requirements for holders of this and other passports. Those articles were split out from articles on passports and the question is should they be linked through a summary section or not. Also does the discussion from Talk:Passport/Archive_2 say anything about the style of linking to split-out articles (note: discussion took place in 2010 when the Summary and splitting style guidelines were significantly less developed which can be checked on history of those pages, so it is also an issue of precedence) or was it only a decision regarding the faith of Visa-free blocks. Thank you very much. P.S. I don't think a survey is necessary here, rather an opinion on what rules apply.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The steps in WP:SPLIT (of which I'm part author) are not rules (e.g. "some steps may not be necessary in all cases"). DexDor (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd refer to the comment above, DexDor being part author and all. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not rules but they are a community consensus guidelines as it says at the page top "This is an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices.".--Twofortnights (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC) And according to WP:CONLIMITED, which definitely is a policy, thus a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow:
 * Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
 * What are you on about? There was a centralised discussion to consider deleting visa sections from the project in their entirety. After a long debate it was decided that rather than be consigned to the bin they would be ring-fenced within dedicated articles and linked at 'See also' sections in the relevant passport articles. It was a compromise arrangement. It was the consensus. You now seek to test if consensus has changed. My position is that it hasn't. If you want greater input you should bring it up where the original discussion took place ie Talk:Passport. This retrospective consideration of article splitting is a red herring. And please sign your posts. RashersTierney (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not "on about" anything. It's all in the WP:CONLIMITED which is clearly a policy. It describes how to deal with a communal consensus which WP:SPLIT is. So to make it clear for you, the consensus you are talking about (which is entirely your perspective as such a decision is not mentioned absolutely anywhere in discussion) could not be reached because it would clearly be a "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time" which "cannot override community consensus on a wider scale".--Twofortnights (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Criticising editors for not having the foresight to anticipate guideline changes still years in the future is frankly ridiculous. Had they been in place it would have been taken into consideration at the time, and not necessarily leading to a result more to your liking. Consensus was correctly arrived at. You are of course free to challenge it as I have suggested numerous times. RashersTierney (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your consensus, that wasn't even reached but is just your claim, is past its expiry date. I hope this is simple enough for you to understand why we can't keep something that is against the rules.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out by the only two outside editors to respond on this RfC that no 'rules' were breached. This is a WP:Consensus issue that potentially affects hundreds of articles. Can someone please 'top and tail' this discussion which has been open for the last month. I intend to take it to Talk:Passport and don't want multiple open threads simultaneously debating the same matter. RashersTierney (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: RfC closure addresses an issue that wasn't raised. The RfC wasn't about whether visa articles should not be separate but about an appropriate application of summary.--Twofortnights (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)