DOSEN PROFIL LENGKAP

Note: If the request involves changing URLs, notify WP:URLREQ for specialized bots designed to handle dead link templates, archive URLs, link verification etc.

Anachronistic bilateral relations categories for Yugoslavia

There are a large number of bilateral relations pages for successor states of Yugoslavia that are anachronistically placed in a bilateral relations category for Yugoslavia. I ask that all bilateral relations articles and categories related to these countries be purged from bilateral relations categories for Yugoslavia.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible that there are Yugoslavia categories containing only bilateral relations for successor states, but this is less likely and I haven't checked. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example edit? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 05:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It might look like [1]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't immediately able to find an example in the forward direction, but the edit which removes the post-Yugoslavia categories would be similar. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: Is the above enough information on how to implement this? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I'll start

working on this soon. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done for <country>–Yugoslavia & Yugoslavia–<country> relations cats. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I found 1053 <Yugoslavia descendant> relations cats, and none of them contained any Yugoslavia cats. Perhaps someone fixed them all? I checked about a dozen of these cats randomly and none of them had any recent changes. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And articles? I spotted Sri Lanka–Yugoslavia relations in Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina–Sri Lanka relations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of removal for the above category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done Got curious, did it in 60 articles. The case of Czechoslovakia categories is similar, but apparently there are only a few articles left. Ponor (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That will likely require some page splits, and I have proposed one for Czech Republic–Israel relations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at articles at first, but then I recursed Category:Bilateral relations of Yugoslavia 4 levels and found 3 more: Seychelles–Yugoslavia relations, Italy–Yugoslavia relations, India–Yugoslavia relations. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While recursing Category:Bilateral relations of Yugoslavia 4 levels, I found 165 possibly problematic cats, 44 of them recently edited by Place Clichy (example). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

165 possibly problematic cats under Category:Bilateral relations of Yugoslavia

Dear LaundryPizza03, Tom.Reding, Ponor. Since all Yugoslav republics are direct legal successors to Yugoslavia, their categorization reflects historical continuity rather than anachronism. This situation differs significantly from cases like the Soviet Union, where categorizing USSR-Nepal relations under some Armenia-Nepal category would be anachronistic. All past Yugoslav and Czechoslovak republics formally inherit relations, including embassies and staff, from the former state, similar to how Prussia–United States relations were inherited by Germany and are included here under Germany–United States category (focus being here exactly on legal and historical continuity and not on direction of going from smaller to bigger or bigger to smaller state). The Soviet Union example shows that Japan–Soviet Union relations are categorized under Japan–Russia relations because Russia is the sole legal successor (is this not anachronistic?). However, for Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, this applies to all former republics, not just to Czechia or Serbia. I am uncertain how best to present this important legal distinction in our articles and categories, but it seems the current approach overlooks this specific aspect entirely. I welcome any suggestions on this matter.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, all articles about politics or sports should treat the countries as distinct. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, categories in Japan–Soviet Union relations and Prussia–United States relations (for example), are there mistakenly as well if I understood your claim properly?--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We should have a {{cat see also}} linking predecessor and successor states. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{Preceding category}} & {{Succeeding category}} would be better imo. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the continued inquiries, but I am uncertain regarding the correct technical approach to take. It appears somewhat confusing to me. Could you kindly provide any example of a good practice to follow?--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attach "Preceding category" to a corresponding Yugoslavia bilateral category on Yugoslav successor states, and "Succeeding category" on Yugoslavia categories to a corresponding category for each Yugoslav successor state. You don't have to check if a successor exists, each successor will need a separate {{Succeeding category}}, and some cases for new states will need to be handled manually. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List rather than change.

I'm trying to collect usages of a specific book in references (there are about 50). I certainly could used AWB to change any occurance of {{.*The Legacy and the Vision.*}} to "Chocolate Pudding"", but instead, I'd like to get a list of what AWB would be changing to "Chocolate Pudding". Is there any way to do this? I'm trying to build a reference template to replace them consistently, but would like a clear way of viewing what is currently being used.Naraht (talk) Naraht (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So the easy way to do this is to run a replacement that finds the target and replaces it with target + [[category:Maintenance category goes here]], and then you have your list in the maintenance category. Your cleanup is to remove the maintenance category code. Van Isaac, GHTV^contr_about 15:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a list of the pages and I don't want to change them until I do calculations. What I want a list of what the actual text is. So with the example above, I'd like a list like

{{cite book| foobar -- The Legacy and the Vision blah}}
{{cite web | lots and lots of other variables|grapes = The Legacy and the Vision}}
{{The Legacy and the Vision - abc}}

Naraht (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AWB is an editing tool, not a browsing tool. You can add code to pages, but it doesn't return any values other than a log of which pages were edited and which were skipped. By adding code to pages, you can use categories and templates to generate some content on-wiki, but you're never going to get raw wiki-code. Van Isaac, GHTV^contr_about 04:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So effectively you want to list the CS1/2 content between <ref> and </ref> (typically) that includes title reference to your book subset? I think the only way to accomplish that would be to use code and process a dumpfile. Beland may be able to comment. Neils51 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if anyone needs to do this in the future, the dump_grep* scripts at https://github.com/cdbeland/moss would work. Though downloading and unpacking the dump can take a couple days and over 100 GB of storage. Looks like this has been taken care of for now, but I also always have the latest dump downloaded if someone needs me to grep it for them. -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: User:DreamRimmer/sandbox – DreamRimmer ■ 13:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer Thank You. I've copied it to a page into one of my own sandboxes, you can clear. This was what I wanted. I thought there were a few more, but some may not have the complete title.Naraht (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remove expatriates from bilateral relations categories

After this CfD and many similar ones, I think there is enough consensus to remove all expatriate, descent, and emigrant categories from bilateral relations categories (e.g. Category:Japanese expatriates in Mexico from Category:Japan–Mexico relations). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is related to #Anachronistic bilateral relations categories for Yugoslavia above, I'll do this after. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This one can probably be done independently from the Yugoslavia actions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Working ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The only not-explicitly-bilateral relations cats I removed were Category:Cross-strait relations & Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From commented to Draftcat...

Thinking of using this on the Drafts that have submitted. Any idea if it would be possible in AWB to change [[:Category:Foo]] [[:Category:Bar]] to {{Draftcat| [[Category:Foo]] [[Category:Bar]] }} ?Naraht (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly have a preference for this to be automated, but the end result will be the same regardless of how the draft ends up in the article space... if it's done with WP:AFCH the script will convert either one to a proper cat, and if it's moved manually the page will still need to be edited to adjust the cat display anyway. In other words, I don't see the benefit of automatically changing it at the moment. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the WP:AFCH script handled it correctly, I will keep a lookout for some that I expect to go to mainspace. IMO, it does look better while in draftcat with the explanation, but that is secondary. Holding off until I review some WP:AFCH results.Naraht (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

;

Special:Search/"may refer to" insource:/may refer to;/ seems to be incorrect punctuation that could be fixed semi-automatically. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 05:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. I just fixed the 29 instances of "may also refer to;" and will let you know if there's any feedback. Certes (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea; if there's no pushback, I can do them unless @Certes is going to / has already done them. ~ rusty ^meow ~ 16:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... ~ rusty ^meow ~ 04:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go now but I'll finish it up tomorrow. Unless someone wants to take over, I did about 20%. ~ rusty ^meow ~ 04:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done Finished up the rest. SophisticatedeveningALT (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I've fixed variants such as "can refer to;", most of which also required other changes. Certes (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Wikilinks to Multiple Articles

I am wanting to see if there is potentially a way for someone to use AWB to automate the adding of Wikilinks to all articles that have listed or otherwise have Bruce Dukov mentioned in the contents of the article. This is an entry I recently created (after it was initially deleted in 2006), and there are about 290 articles that mention Mr. Dukov individually (not in infoboxes, it seems) in the text of the article. I am wanting to see if those mentions could be automatically linked, essentially. Please let me know if this is possible.

Sincerely, PootisHeavy (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky part is that per MOS:DUPLINK, you do not link all instances, but rather only those places where you don't have existing context. This is something that really needs to be undertaken with significant editorial judgement, which is exactly what AWB is not really built for. Your best bet is to save the current list of articles into your userspace, then go through them by hand and hand link where prior context is insufficient to understand the linked individual. Van Isaac, GHTV^contr_about 01:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's completely fair. I appreciate the feedback on this. I'll see what I can do.

Sincerely, PootisHeavy (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Working ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that others of us can assist with a few each day so that you don't get bored silly! (probably all done by tomorrow...) Neils51 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aw that's so cool! Thank you guys so much. It is much appreciated. :)

Sincerely, PootisHeavy (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation parameter errors in Honduras municipalities

User:Zackmann08 recently had to fix an error I inadvertently caused by simply adding a figure in metres to elevation parameter in the infobox for a municipality in Honduras. Can somebody use AWB to fix the infobox parameters in the other municipality articles for Honduras from |elevation= to |elevation_m= to avoid other editors causing the same issue again. Municipalities of Honduras, not sure how many it affects. An example here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid use of AWB as these parameters are nto actually in use. This is a solution without a problem. If you would preview your edits before saving them, this would not be an issue. I will also say that I monitor this category daily and have for months and this is the first time this particular issue has popped up. So again, a solution without a problem. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Convert HTML-newlined to semantic list in a specific infobox field

In {{chembox}}, the |OtherNames= field can contain multiple values. Per long-standing documentation, they should therefore be a semantic list via {{ubl}}. However, many instead are written as a single string with embedded <br> or <br/> line-break tags. I'd like a bot run to fix that mess, wrapping the parameter-value with the 'ubl' call and replacing all HTML line-break tags with vertical bars. The value someimes spread into multiple lines of source, but the field is always followed by another parameter or the end-of-template, so it's easy to detect how far to grab for the string to edit. There are about 16,000 files using this template, the vast majority of which have only one such template per page (though a few have more than one), and no other template appears to have the same CamelCase form of that parameter-name. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]