Talk:Visa requirements for Lebanese citizens

As far as I know, Lebanon has no history of English speaking conquerors and the current official languages are Arabic and French. After going through nearly 1000 revisions, I have yet to find the "tie-breaker" mandated by MOS:RETAIN.

Date format is a bit easier.^[1] It took more than 4 years before the first edit to a non-stub version used a particular date format (see: MOS:DATERET) and I have identified this one on 27 June 2014 by User:Twofortnights as the relevant edit. That edit used the format of dd-Mm-yyyy (in the first new citation). --BushelCandle (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(Later) I believe I've now found the tie-breaking edit for MOS:RETAIN
This edit by User:NawafDandachi on 9 January 2015, introducing the phrase "Access Permit is required for travelling inside the zone, except Civil Use Areas", establishes non-US English as the first flavour.

Consequently, and within the next few days, I intend to add the appropriate templates of
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2026}} and
{{Use Commonwealth English|date=June 2026}} {{EngvarB|date=June 2026}}
to the top of this article unless someone can give cogent reasons not to...--BushelCandle (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(Later still) Mmmmm, it seems I was wrong to think there was no "no history of English speaking conquerors". It seems that for a couple of months in June and July 1944, British Commonwealth forces did indeed occupy Beirut and other parts of the Lebanon - not that this affects my opinion above that US English has no claim to be the consistent variety used in this article... --BushelCandle (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice to get this article to "Good article" status.

One problem I've identified is that it currently grossly violates our Manual of Style section entitled Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked.

That section currently begins by stating: "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly.^[1] A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention."^[2] "

A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:

• Everyday words understood by most readers in context.
• The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar – unless there is a contextually important reason to link and this generally includes major examples of geographic features such as countries (eg United States, Japan, Brazil, etc).

It goes on to state: "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect."

It is because of these criteria that I recently made this edit (that was then substantially reverted by User:JoeSakr1980). --BushelCandle (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(LATER): It's very disappointing that rather than comment here, where everybody can weigh in, an editor has instead chosen to restore the gross overlinking in this article and include in their edit summary "I respect your stance on removing the interlinking ... so I undo-ed your edits..."

Please understand that this not just flouting my stance but that of the consensus at the English Wikipedia expressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked. That is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. However, unless a cogent rationale is expounded, this article is NOT one of those exceptions. If you think that this portion of our MoS is wrong, then you are welcome to start a Request for Comment (RFC) [Good luck with that!] but until and unless you get the MoS changed editors are in danger of being reported for disruptive editing if they keep restoring scores of repetitive internal links and filling our article with a sea of blue.

The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles. The MoS documents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting, making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for our readers.

Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context: Excessive use of hyperlinks can be distracting and may slow the reader down. Redundant links (like the one in Visa not required for passengers who are admitted to the United States on a visa and are returning to the United States after a visit) clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. High-value links that are worth pursuing should stand out clearly. --BushelCandle (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

On the map Armenia's colour is visa-free, while as of now it is visa on arrival/eVisa.

Romania, Moldova and Colombia are listed as eVisa, but the links from the websites of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of respective countries state, that Lebanese citizens are required to obtain a visa beforehand at embassies/consulates (should be grey). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.43.141.100 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Fixed the table.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your tireless and useful work on this and many other visa-related articles, Twofortnights! --BushelCandle (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure! But what about the map? Is it going to stay outdated?

Those countries do not have an option of electronic visa for Lebanese citizens. Perhaps the visa application is in electronic form but visa sticker is printed into the passport at embassies or consulates of those 3 countries. Map is correct but the table is still false. Please, someone should change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.73.175 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The visa requirement info for Lebanese to go to Egypt is not very accurate. The exemptions do not apply for passengers residing in other countries than Lebanon. I am going to Egypt and I had to go apply for a visa, and they have mentioned at the consulate that these exemptions don’t apply on Lebanese passport holders living in the UAE. Treehouseee (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

On the map, Jordan is grey, although Jordan grants visa free access to Lebanese citizens. 109.233.20.2 (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Iraq as well 213.175.191.102 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

map still not updated regarding Jordan. 178.135.11.92 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Syria should be green on the map as it is visa free for Lebanese citizens, and Thailand just updated its visa policy to include Lebanon on the e Visa list. 213.175.191.102 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We need solid data showing that entry into Syria is exempt. For example, data from the Syrian government..

There is currently no accurate data on visa policy of Syria. We need to do some more research on this. Lades2222 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Indonesia updated its visa policy to include Lebanon on the e-Visa website. The map should be updated. 178.135.16.62 (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)