Talk:List of diplomatic missions of Serbia

Forced image sizing

I have removed the forced sizing of the photos as this does go against Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. Photo thumb sizes are set thru Special:Preferences, and whilst it is defaulted to 180px, users can change this thumb size on an individual basis to a size up to 300px. There is no reason to force images at 250px on this or any other page in WP. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you the policy you linked (and probably didn't read) specifically says that images can (not can't) be resized to a different size (up to 550px is considered fine in usual circumstances) and I think it's appropriate to have them resized here. Thanks for your input anyway. --Avala (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not: forced image size is allowed only in very limited cases where it can be proven that it is needed for the sake of the reader, as in eg detailed maps. Forcing image sizes is bad as it overides our user preferences. If you want to see them at 250px go to your preferences and set your images at 250px. Forcing the images at 250px in this case is not beneficial for the reader as the images are photos and as such they are merely of artistic value, not of informational value, so nobody will need to really look closely into the images, so they don't need to have a forced size. Also, forced sizes may interfere with modern Web browsers that offer full page zoom capabilities, and they also create many problems for people on low resolutions, such as those using PDAs (640x480) or netbooks (800x480). I reverted the forced sizes. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade

Back to Australia vs Brazil in the netball... Kransky (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here to listing ambassadors. Let's use Russia as an example, 150 embassies, the average tour of duty for an ambassador is around 3-4 years (in some cases much longer), you are looking at around 12 changes per year, that is manageable, particularly when they are publicised. So I am of the opinion, it is manageable, and adds value to the list, as the ambassadors are part of the diplomatic mission - contrary to opinion, these articles are not just on the buildings. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that Russavia is here to work on Russian articles, given his strong interest in the country. Likewise Avala has an interest in Serbia, and WhisperToMe has an interest in Houston. But what about articles on Gabon or Argentina or anywhere else where nobody is going to put in the hard work to update this information? The articles will loose consistency if only the articles for popular or easy countries are updated.

Russavia started writing articles about diplomatic missions of and to Russia. Is Russavia going to continue and produce articles of other missions of countries that might not be that interesting to him? He might want to demonstrate his commitment to following-through on one idea first before proposing additional, dramatic changes (like merging the Bhutan foreign relations/Bhutan diplomatic mission articles)

My firm position is that if Wikipedia consensus considers a list of ambassadors of a particular country is relevant, then it deserves its own article. Let this category of articles then develop its own appropriate style and protocols. Kransky (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments about the new upgrade.

country names should be justified to the top, not vertically centred
- If you can fix it it'd be great.--Avala (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vienna is listed as a Consulate-General and an Embassy - probably caused by the embassy being located in two different buildings. I would recommend only listing the embassy.
- I suppose but only Austria and Greece are listed separately on the Serbian MFA website so I added them into the article.--Avala (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason Austria and Greece would be listed separately is that all embassies have a consular section; in some instances they are located in the same premises as the embassy, in some instances they are located in separate premises. But the consulate is part of the embassy and shouldn't be listed separately. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the problem with tables is that it constrains text - Dusseldorf's listing for example needs two lines.
- I know, but it's mostly OK (even Düsseldorf is in one line for me).--Avala (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to listing heads of mission. They frequently change, and it is not in keeping with the name of the article. If you consider this fact notable enough, please write articles about the people, or put their details in List of Ambassadors from Serbia
- They change every four years so I suppose it is not that often. Until we have articles on all embassies and ambassadors (and I wont be making hundreds of one line stubs, I'll rather wait until I can make more serious articles) I don't think we should change it. But when we get those articles I agree with the proposal.--Avala (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what are the obelisks (‡) intended to represent?
- Put your mouse over them to find out ;). --Avala (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how do you propose to make the changes to all the other articles? And keep this information current with new ambassadors etc?
- I don't think it's possible to use this form on some African countries with which had problems to assemble the list of missions let alone heads of these missions but it doesn't mean that 100 other articles on countries with developed diplomacy should be in the dead spot.--Avala (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid nothing happens when I move the mouse over the obelisks :( Kransky (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your browser has problems with Template:abbr.--Avala (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like articles on Moscow and Libreville differ in size and quality, that way articles on diplomatic missions of Russia and Gabon will differ too. It's very unfortunate but it's the reality and I don't see any reason for articles which can be expanded to wait for the articles on underdeveloped countries which might not develop in decades, just like the respective countries.--Avala (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have List of Ambassadors from Serbia and List of Ambassadors to Serbia. Rather than duplicate contributions, it might be a good idea for you to develop standards for other similar articles. Maybe you can create their own category (list of ambassadors by sending country etc)?

I remain opposed to the idea of mixing lists about ambassadors and missions. Why do we need to mix oranges and apples? The design of the articles should remain consistent. Kransky (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article

There is now a discussion at WP:FOR on the formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" articles. As this discussion ostensibly could affect this article, editors are encouraged to provide their opinions on the WP:FOR at this link - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Formatting_of_diplomatic_missions_lists - please do not discuss on this article talk page as valid points for consideration may very well not be seen by editors at large. Thank you, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

‡

What does ‡ mark mean? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of these things is not like the others

I would like List of diplomatic missions of Serbia to follow the same formatting as found for almost every other country.

As mentioned earlier, I did not find the tabelled format proposed by Russavia to be user-friendly or compatible with photographs. I also felt the inclusion of heads of mission went beyond the scope of these articles, which was essentially focussed on diplomatic networks rather than acting as a directory of serving diplomats.

You (and TurkishFlame, for the Turkey article) may have your own reasons why tabelled formatting is preferable, so you may wish to explain what are the respective strengths and weaknesses of the choices available. You may even want to propose a totally different style, and see if it gains traction. I would only ask that consistency in formatting is maintained between all the articles.

On the third anniversary of these articles, I will shortly be proposing some generic changes to these articles. Feel free to add your ideas, and constructively criticise mine. Kransky (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we have agreed not to do that what you have just did to the List of diplomatic missions of Serbia. You are trying to do the same thing with the article on Russian diplomatic missions. Don't you see that you are going the wrong way? Instead of bringing the quality of other articles to the level of the ones in question, you are bringing down the quality of the few articles that stand out in order to level them all. Well let's than destroy all featured articles because there are more stubs? I spent a significant amount of time as well as Russavia working on those article for you to just destroy them for the sake of all articles looking like a simple directory. Try bringing up the quality of the bad ones, it's always easier to destroy than build. It reminds me of communism where those who could develop faster were stopped for the sake of everything being the same and balanced, so that the stupid and smart would have the same spot in society, the same wage, the same clothes. What you should concentrate on doing is developing other article and not reverting the developed article to the state in which the majority of articles is in in order for them to look similar. If we were doing that Wikipedia would get nowhere, because we would revert any development on articles on the US president because hey it can't be different to the article on Fijian president. Such retrograde editing is not welcome and on top of that we had an agreement not do it, so why are you now violating the consensus in which you also took part?--Avala (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we have agreed not to do that what you have just did to the List of diplomatic missions of Serbia.

I am sure we both have the wisdom and maturity to come to an arrangement, but it will take time. Hopefully we will not need to RfC this.

We already came to it but you are now having the change of heart.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to do the same thing with the article on Russian diplomatic missions.

Correct

Again, try concentrating your time and effort on expanding the bad articles not downgrading the good ones.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see that you are going the wrong way? Instead of bringing the quality of other articles to the level of the ones in question, you are bringing down the quality of the few articles that stand out in order to level them all.

I am not sure why you consider the tabelled format is superior. Some text that cannot fit in one line is wrapped within cells. This is a matter of aethetics which we are not going to agree on, and I would suggest we seek views elsewhere.

Where you have made a substantive change to the article is the inclusion of non-resident accreditation and heads of missions. It is my view that non-resident accreditation is not notable enough for inclusion, at least at this level which seeks to take a broader view. The fact that the ambassador to Brazil is accredited to Guyana might be more appropriate in an article on Serbia's embassy in Brasilia. On the issue of heads of mission, this would be a detour away from the scope of these articles which is covering the physical diplomatic missions.

I think the more information we insert the better, and I don't think that the extra information that I have added is distracting because of the way I added it to the article through those abbreviation templates.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's than destroy all featured articles because there are more stubs? I spent a significant amount of time as well as Russavia working on those article for you to just destroy them for the sake of all articles looking like a simple directory. Try bringing up the quality of the bad ones, it's always easier to destroy than build.

I acknowledge the work you have done for this article. However I have not seen either Russavia, TurkishFlame or yourself taking the time to improve DMBC articles beyond those concerning countries you have a narrow interest in (being Russia, Turkey and Serbia, respectively). I seriously doubt that you will be willing to make all those updates to the 200+ articles to "bring up their quality". It would be a major and consuming undertaking. I would hardly call those stubs Russavia developed (like Mauritius–Russia relations) to be high quality.

See things from the perspective of those editors who look after all the DMBC articles. We simply do not have the time and resources to ensure we keep updated all the ambassadors and accreditations of 180+ countries. It is unfair for you to expect us to do all the necessary work brought in just because a few other people with limited interest wants a format different to what 96% of the articles use.

Actually I did start and converted two more articles to this style. Obviously I can't convert them all and I am especially unmotivated for articles that are still dubious regarding the reliability of the content like those on African countries.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of communism where those who could develop faster were stopped for the sake of everything being the same and balanced, so that the stupid and smart would have the same spot in society, the same wage, the same clothes.

The problem with this metaphor is that I don't consider your idea is especially smart, nor do I consider a simple schema to be stupid. Wikipedia is also a cooperative venture, and teamwork is vital no matter what society you belong in.

I think the most important is development and not manual break downs for those who try to stand out. It's like punishing a pupil who has better grades instead of awarding him. It's like China, my perception is that they are better off today, you probably think it was better when they all had to wear the same clothes.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you should concentrate on doing is developing other article and not reverting the developed article to the state in which the majority of articles is in in order for them to look similar.

With respect Avala, this is an arrogant statement to make. Why should all the other editors follow a scheme developed by only a limited number of editors solely interested in a small range of articles?

It's like if you removed the infobox template from the US president article a few years ago because at that time it was among the minority of articles that used it, to make it be the same as other small articles. But Wikipedia chose the different path, it expanded the other articles in order to bring them to the level of the best ones. Development only comes from competition and by leveling articles to the level of the lower quality ones you are suffocating the possibility of development.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were doing that Wikipedia would get nowhere, because we would revert any development on articles on the US president because hey it can't be different to the article on Fijian president.

No, because US President articles don't follow a proforma, whereas DMBC articles (your version, and mine) do.

There is no rule on Wikipedia that says that articles on a similar subject must look the same.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such retrograde editing is not welcome and on top of that we had an agreement not do it, so why are you now violating the consensus in which you also took part?

Which agreement are you talking about?

Agreement to let the better articles stand, that it is absolutely wrong to destroy them for the single reason "other articles are not as good so we will bring it to the lower level". Instead, try to make them into better articles based on "this one is not as good so let's improve it"--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep things cool (and assume good faith) - we can bring other regular contributors to this debate, and we can ask them for their opinion. After all, they do the work too.

I agree.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avala (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kransky (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me. You keep referring to the existing style as "bad", without actually pointing out what is actually wrong. If you could tell me what is wrong (since I have already critiqued your style), that would be a good start.

I maintain that consistency is good practice, and is a requirement to the spirit, if not the word, of WP:RETAIN and internal consistency. I am prepared to debate this interpretation, and I am prepared to debate a proposed new style. My chief concern is that I seriously doubt there is sufficient interest by editors to replicate all the articles to reflect your stylistic preference.

To take this matter forward, could you please indicate if there is anything additional you would want added to Diplomatic missions of Serbia (other people have wanted honorary missions, details of missions to open or close etc), or if you are happy with your style.

I will also get back to you about drafting a joint statement on the matter in order to garner debate. Kransky (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I want is that you let the Wikipedia develop on its own without artificial bounds that no article can stand out at one point in time. This has got nothing to do with consistency. Consistency is already there in the sense that all these articles cover the same subject in a similar manner. But leveling them to be twin articles of each other is what I don't accept. If we were to do that with all articles then we wouldn't have any featured articles as they'd have to be leveled to the quality of the majority of the article and that is unreferenced stubs. This article is just one of the articles in the series of similar lists but they are in no way connected to each other as they talk about different countries. This is not the only series of articles that cover the similar subject but across borders. For an example there are lists of heads of states and government out there. Just look at the difference between List of Presidents of Portugal and List of Presidents of Bulgaria, according to you they must look the same as they both begin with List of Presidents of just as these articles begin with List of diplomatic missions of but they don't; the first one is a featured list, it has a beautiful informative table, images etc. while the second one doesn't even have references let alone a nice table or images. If we were to follow your logic of the leveled quality (the amount of content, usage of special templates, composition of the page), design (position of images, type of table) and content (what content should be used and what should not be used) we would have to bring these two articles to look absolutely the same. It would be difficult to upgrade the one on Bulgaria so the easiest thing would be to downgrade the one on Portugal. The same thing you are doing here, if you can't upgrade all the other articles then you will destroy the one that makes them look plain. The whole point of featured lists is that they somehow stand out, that they are somehow different and obviously of higher quality than all the other lists but how am I going to make this list a featured list if you keep on trying to make it look just like any other list? I would really like to hear the answer on this question. Also the reality is that you don't have to do anything as these articles are not connected. They can have different content and design. One article can include honorary consulates and the other doesn't have to, just as the list on presidents of Portugal can have the detailed information on why did one leave office early and the list on Bulgarian presidents can leave this info for main articles.--Avala (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is consistency worthwhile? Absolutely!

Aside from making the articles look neat and professional, it allows us to demonstrate to editors with tendentious agendas that we are applying standards equally across all countries. If somebody says we should list Turkey as a European country, or exclude Taiwanese missions, or call Macedonia FYROM, or include all honorary consulates of Vanuatu (to demonstrate how extensive its diplomatic network is), then we need to rely on precedents that establish we are applying a consistent standard across all articles. Otherwise we would be accused of maintaining double standards, or worse, contending editors will come in and make counter changes.

One of the strange obsessions with diplomacy are arcane rituals and language, but it helps provide order in a profession where subtle one uppance is rewarded. Kransky (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the things you mentioned are related to technical consistency (how we should call Macedonia, where should we list Turkey etc.) and not quality and the only consistency regarding quality we should aim for is to have the consistent high quality which means everything but cloning articles based on the similarity of the subject they cover. I invite you to actually read what I wrote especially about featured lists, to open those articles that I linked to and then when you also read my question that is hidden among what you probably see as a block of text, maybe you will realize that you might be wrong on this issue, after you read my question and find out how it can't be answered while defending such a position.--Avala (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not believe that using wikitables enhances the quality of this articles. Instead it breaks consistency with other articles, and the inclusion of ambassadors is a time-consuming, unnotable detail that goes against the scope of these articles (ie diplomatic missions).

I think articles listing Ambassadors by country is the most appropriate place for information on ambassadors to go. Look at it this way - if Diplomatic Missions of Serbia listed ambassadors, there would be no need for the article List of Ambassadors from Serbia...

I will let you think about this before I swap the article back. If you we are still in disagreement, I will have to take this to RfC. Kransky (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously stated the consistency with other articles is there based on subject not quality or design. Otherwise we would never get a featured article, as bringing 200 articles to that quality together is not possible even in theory. As for the article being time-consuming, well that is a weak argument as we would have to cut the Wikipedia in half then. Then let's remove all information from Wikipedia that needs constant updating and that makes a big portion of this encyclopedia and that is exactly what makes it better than paper encyclopedias.

I already explained this. Do I need to repeat myself or will you read what I write? It's about this article just listing heads of missions while that article concentrates on them in detail explaining their status as well as their photos etc. It's also about this article using some advanced templates that the other basic articles do not use.

I would appreciate if you would let me develop this list to the status of a featured list. Reverting this article to the historical version will undo all of my hard work and I wont see it as a good faith edit. I would finally suggest to you to work on other articles that don't even have references, it would be much better for Wikipedia than you spending your energy on how to destroy this one article as if it is somehow a big deal. If you think that leveling the design and not the quality of articles is the way to go, ie. that you will feel accomplished after you make this article "good" as other unreferenced articles with no external links, photos, templates, tables and all the other advanced content then great but I am telling you, it's a wrong approach. When you bring other articles to the acceptable level I will accept your calls but for as long as this article is of higher quality I have no intention of letting it slip into the sea of mediocre articles as you are trying to do by leveling it to that low quality instead of bringing them up to this level.--Avala (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This matter will now go to RfC.

My summary of the debate is below, and will be used to explain the circumstances to editors who may comment. I would ask you to ensure you are happy with what I have said, and add any points.

User:Kransky and User:Avala are in disagreement on the format of the Diplomatic Mission by Sending Country articles.
Most of the 200+ articles follow a simple format of listing each diplomatic mission by city, country and continent (for example Diplomatic missions of Fiji).
Avala would like to create a new format that uses Wikitables, that lists the heads of respective missions and lists concurrent accreditations through some kind of hotlink (hover your cursor over an obelisk and those countries are displayed)
Avala considers this format is superior for these reasons:
[Avala to list reasons]
[Kransky to counter-respond]
Kranksy considers this format should not be used because:
[Kransky to list reasons]
[Avala to counter-respond]

Are you happy with this Avala? Kransky (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion with Turkish Flame

I, like Avala, and Russavia, support the usage of wikitables in DMBC articles. It looks more featured and it helps readers. Kransky said "However I have not seen either Russavia, TurkishFlame or yourself taking the time to improve DMBC articles beyond those concerning countries you have a narrow interest in (being Russia, Turkey and Serbia, respectively). I seriously doubt that you will be willing to make all those updates to the 200+ articles to "bring up their quality"..." I spent nearly a week for bringing DM of Turkey article up. I searched lots of Turkish sources, etc. For example, I can't find all Swedish ambassadors' names, their missions, etc. because I'm not a Swedish speaker. But if we don't try to find ambassadors, we can easily add wikitables to all 200+ DMBC articles. Kransky, you also touch on country classifications and said "Otherwise we would be accused of maintaining double standards..". Nearly in all articles Cyprus, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan are listed under Europe, but Turkey listed under Asia or the Middle East. Isn't it a double standart? I'll take steps to correct this injustice. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt your dedication to the Turkish diplomatic missions article. My concern is that I rarely see you contributing to other DMBC articles, unless it concerns Turkey. If we adopt Wikitables, who is going to make all the changes to every other article, and keep the details consistent?

I note your eagerness to have Turkey classified as a European country. It is a contentious question, and I do not intend to debate the matter here. But if Cyprus, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are incorrectly listed as being in Europe, then by all means fix the problem. But this demonstrates to me that you are not even bothering updating articles related to issues you seem to be quite passionate about, so I cannot imagine you would be prepared to reformat all those other articles. I would not blame you if you get bored and frustrated updating the names of every single Chinese, Ghanan, Syrian etc ambassador.

You may notice that Avala had earlier created a separate article for Serbian ambassadors, and somebody had proposed its merger with the Serbian mission articles. I have argued against the merge, saying the two articles had different scopes. You might want to contribute to this debate, and perhaps propose a similar article for Turkish ambassadors. Kransky (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can add wikitables to all DMBC articles if you want but i can't find all ambasadors' names.

Could you please provide me a link about the discussion of country classifications? And is there a consensus on listing Cyprus, Turkey, Georgia, etc. Asian or Middle Eastern? Like I said, all of these countries except Turkey are listed under Europe which I think intentionally, not incorrectly.(an example) If there isn't a consensus, why don't we list these countries European? They are all CoE members, Cyprus is a member of the EU, Turkey is a candidate etc. Or can we list countries alphabetically?

Hmm. I can create an article about Turkish ambassadors if it isn't against the policy. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the Emperor of Wikipedia. Of course you can create an article on Turkish ambassadors!

I don't propose to enter into a debate on where Turkey goes, at least not here. It is a contentious issue, and I do not want DMBC articles to be a battleground for people who have single-minded issues. The UN Geoscheme is an impartial guide for us, and you are welcome (and encouraged) to change articles where countries are incorrectly placed. If you are so desperate that Turkey is declared a European country, it would need a consensus that neither you and I alone are authorised to give. Kransky (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll create an article about Turkish ambassadors soon.

I asked you to provide a link. If there is no consensus about this issue, the EU's and the CoE's Europe definition is the most applicable one. We can't use the UN Geoscheme everywhere. DMBC articles are about diplomacy, politics. For example Kosovo, Abkhazia are not UN members but some countries maintain their embassies in these countries. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 13:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of diplomatic missions of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, everything is OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on List of diplomatic missions of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of diplomatic missions of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808172046/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=08&dd=11&nav_id=52625 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=08&dd=11&nav_id=52625
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105061243/http://www.embserbia.cn/ to http://www.embserbia.cn/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ambasadasrbije.si/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of diplomatic missions of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009035718/http://www.studiob.rs/info/vest.php?id=24338 to http://www.studiob.rs/info/vest.php?id=24338
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301031336/http://www.serbiaeg.com/ to http://www.serbiaeg.com/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.serbembaires.com.ar/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225162412/http://www.embassyserbia.co.il/Eng/IndexEng.htm/ to http://www.embassyserbia.co.il/Eng/IndexEng.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708160217/http://www.konzulat-srbije-rijeka.hr/index.php?strana=naslovne to http://www.konzulat-srbije-rijeka.hr/index.php?strana=naslovne
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713114706/http://www.scgembassy.org.mk/ to http://www.scgembassy.org.mk/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812155145/http://www.serbianembassy.no/ to http://www.serbianembassy.no/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141119133439/http://www.embajada-serbia.es/ to http://www.embajada-serbia.es/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]