Welcome to Wikinews

A nice cup of coffee for you while you get started

Getting started as a contributor
How to write an article
  1. Pick something current?
  2. Use two independent sources?
  3. Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start.
  4. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs.
  5. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask?

  • Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template.
    [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

 Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally.
As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems.

Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation
  Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.
All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours.

Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.

The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.

Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies
Places to go, people to meet

Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.

There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved
Write your first article for Wikinews!

Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!

It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Danny. I will begin the Trump taxes review shortly. If you are still pursuing reviewer rights and you have interest and/or time, perhaps you would like to do a mock review of one of the other two articles up for review. And I don't just mean doing copy-editing and adding categories, but writing your assessment on the talk page: Did you find the article ready to publish or not? If no, state why. If yes, state any changes you made which you felt the author should have gotten right before submitting. You've seen the type of commentary Pi leaves on his reviews; that's what I mean.
I think Wikinews would be well served by another active reviewer. It can quickly become a bottleneck because it often takes longer to review an article than it does to write it. Every fact needs to be confirmed in the listed sources. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I wasn't comfortable leaving this on the talk page, so writing here; I took a look at Swedish academy announces 2019 Nobel Prize winners in physics.
  • While the sources use "Universe" (capital), generally its used as lower case, so I switched it, but it wouldn't be wrong to use uppercase here
  • Both sources use "James", not "Jim" - "Jim" can't be found anywhere in either article. I'm sure there are sources that use "Jim", but none that were cited, so I switched it to be using "James". The enwiki article, however, is at w:Jim Peebles, so I had to pipe it.
  • Given how long its been since it was submitted, I updated the date and phrasing to reflect that its Thursday (when it would most likely be published; Friday would be getting close to stale)
  • Total edits made: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_academy_announces_2019_Nobel_Prize_winners_in_physics&type=revision&diff=4520756&oldid=4520271
  • Verdict: If I were a reviewer, I would publish the article, specifically Special:Permalink/4520756
    1. Copyright - pass
      • Earwigs flagged phrases "the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics" and "scientists have been able to", both fairly common
      • The quotation was also flagged, but it is properly attributed
    2. Newsworthiness - pass
      • Specific -  
      • Relevant -  
      • Fresh -  , but not for long
    3. Verifiability - pass
    4. NPOV - pass
    5. Style - pass
      • I switched "Universe" to "universe", but, as noted above, "U" would probably be acceptable
      • Headline - personally, would prefer "Swedish academy announces winners of 2019 Nobel Prize in physics" or "2019 winners of Nobel", but "Swedish academy announces 2019 Nobel Prize winners in physics" meets the requirements
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: was published by Pi zero - see edits made: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_academy_announces_2019_Nobel_Prize_winners_in_physics&type=revision&diff=4521029&oldid=4520756 --DannyS712 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like most of the changes made by Pi come down to personal preferences. Not sure why Pi deemed that one fact about the number of exoplanets needed to be attributed while the others were fine. So, I'd say you did a fine job. BTW, what is this 'Earwigs' tool you speak of? Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712, SVTCobra: Though I aspire to apply maximal expertise to each decision, that's not at all the same thing as "personal preference". To test the question, I've gone through and scrutinized each of the edits I made.
  • diff — The concern here is straightforward, though the application was an interesting challenge as I remarked in the edit summary. Use of "America" to mean "US" is inherently non-neutral. In my experience, there's a very strong correlation between people who complain bitterly that this usage is not biased, and people who live in the US.
  • diff — This addressed two concerns at once. One concern was that there was a phrase here verbatim from source. That phrase was a bit over the length threshold (nominally four consecutive words, by the rule of thumb); there is a certain art to judging this, to do with when a sequence of words becomes such a cliche (stock phrase) that its selection by the writer can be treated as more-or-less a single choice and thus, for purposes of word count toward the rule of thumb, more-or-less a single "word"; but when in doubt, breaking up such constructs is preferable. The other concern was with the use of the word "discovery". In the interest of neutrality, when science reporting discusses interpretation of empirical data, avoid terms such as "reveal", "show", "discover" that carry a suggestion that truth is being uncovered; we seek to not endorse such interpretations; this shouldn't be an obstacle to reporting, with attribution, that the scientists gave this interpretation — and with avoiding words like "reveal", "show", etc.
  • diff — Subtle little violations of WN:Future can be easily overlooked, and catching them is all the more valuable for that.
  • diff — Here again, two concerns. The first concern is that, to be precise, these exoplanets were already there so some precision is called for. The second concern is the attribution; and SVTCobra questioned, above, why this fact should want attribution while the other did not. It's because numbers are much easier for people to have different takes on and thus harder to pin down as generally-agreed-upon-common-knowledge than are simple discrete points like 51-Pegasus-b-was-the-first-exoplanet-discovered (yes, that's more like an observation than an interpretation, so "discover" is fine).
  • diff — Another distance-from-source case; as I recall, a rather long verbatim passage whose last word was the "while" that I eliminated there; a tiny decrement to very-close-similarity-of-phrases.
Regarding the aforementioned tool, iirc I took a look at it once-upon-a-time and concluded it was unsuitable for use in review because (I'm merely describing what I remember concluding at the time) unlike dupdet, which lists specific details of particular passages the human operator can then reason about, that other tool generated a lump conclusion which the operator was supposed to simply accept. (It also seemed complacent about specific concerns that I would find very concerning.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Did you mean to say "slightly ambiguous" instead of "inherently non-neutral" in regards to the US/America thing? --SVTCobra 20:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: No. Granted, it is sightly ambiguous. --Pi zero (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: OK, then we need to talk about it elsewhere in the future as this is not the proper forum. --SVTCobra 20:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I concur that this would not be an appropriate place for a discussion on the matter. Note, fwiw, that the concerns mentioned re both "America" and "discovery" are included in WN:Neutrality (sections #Avoiding phrase bias, #Scientific results). --Pi zero (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


for the help. Baozon90 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

US announces restrictions on flying to CubaEdit

Hi. I really hesitated over the neutrality aspect of this article, actually doing the whole source-check while mulling it over (everything checked out, btw). The first thing I noticed that concerned me was the lack of variety in the sources; but of course it's not all that complicated a story. And I wondered about the "why" of the thing. (Kudos, btw, for reporting it as a claim of motivation; nicely played. :-) Poking around to see what more far-flung sources have to say on it, I noticed on one hand that nobody really has much to say about it yet, and on the other hand, that what almost everyone does mention is a bit of historical background (that's how I noticed that CBS News was exceptional by having no match for a string search on "Obama"). Anyway, it doesn't look to me as if much is needed, but after giving it all time to sink in, I honestly felt something is needed. --Pi zero (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to add some history --DannyS712 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Richard SpencerEdit

Hi DannyS712

I am intermittently online this quarter of the year but just saw the very detailed and informative story about Richard Spencer. In the story the headline is in passive tense, can this be corrected without making it too long?

Thank you greatly for your continued effort and commitment. It is amazing. I do not cope with following local news beyond the local suburb these days and appreciate your attention to the detail.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I'm in the middle of something on enwiki right now, but have no objections if you want to rename the article. If not, I'll try to take a look soon --DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; I am afraid that I lack the background knowledge to do a rename sanely. Look forward to your assistance. Gryllida (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't think of a good, active, title. I'll leave it for now. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would perhaps suggest to merge the first two paragraphsEdit

--Gryllida (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is US House of Representatives impeaches President Trump, I was trying to follow Wikinews:Style guide#The first paragraph, but no objections if you want to merge them. My priority is just trying to get this published asap, as it is breaking news --DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about answering the 5Ws. It answers the Why. I am not sure what is the best way to go from here. Gryllida (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gryllida: I've added a why to the first paragraph --DannyS712 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

mainspace disambigsEdit

This is a grey area. The style guide, which says to use a mainspace redirect instead of linking directly to a category, is about writing an article. I've been linking directly to categories in the disambig pages. Whether that's what we should do... is less clear to me, atm. Maybe I had in mind some reasoning on why to link to the categories directly in that case; if I did have some reasoning in mind, it has not yet come back to me. Do you have any thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Not an big-scale ideas, but we should be consistent about where we link to redirects vs directly to the categories. If articles use redirects, thats fine. What should disambiguation pages use? What should other namespaces use? (Content, not talk) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In most situations, we go through the mainspace redirects. Any exception ought to be for a specific reason.
  • The preload page for disambig pages illustrates linking directly to category pages. {{mainspace disambig/template preload}}.
  • The purpose of a mainspace redirect is to provide a link based on a "keyword" independent of the target namespace; ultimately, this is extended through {{w}} to wikilink syntax independent even of target project.
  • The purpose of a wikilink in a disambiguation page is, ordinarily, to link explicitly to a category. There is no intention to be independent of target namespace.
So I guess I'm leaning again toward linking directly to categories in this situation; the confusing think here was that the second option on the disambig page used {{w}} because there was no local target.

Does my reasoning sound plausible to you? If we're going to do things that way, we should look for ways to further document the practice, so that hopefully folks in future can more readily see that it's meant to be done that way. --Pi zero (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

So use direct links to categories, or {{w}}? I suggest making a discussion somewhere so this can be agreed on, and then I can go through (manually or via bot) and apply the new scheme --DannyS712 (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. It's already done in a consistent way, set out when the disambig-page arrangement was first set up and followed ever since (till now). Blood Red Sandman went along with it, as I recall. Seems like escalating the discussion is only needful if we're looking to change the arrangement, and honestly, as I think about it I have no desire to change it. I admit, on reflection I can see I was hoping you'd agree it was a plausible arrangement, and we could simply look for ways to improve its documentation, and continue it. --Pi zero (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems that there are a lot of things that are the standard/general way of doing things here, but that aren't documented anywhere... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Historically, Wikinews has been more of a living tradition, passed on directly from user to user rather than through documentation pages. A Wikinewsie from an earlier era than I remarked, some time back, that small news orgs usually aren't well documented, as folks are too busy writing news to write about how they write news; it's the really big orgs that have massive documentation (like AP, or BBC). The shortage of Wikinews documentation makes reviewer-reporter interaction, especially review comments and also notably edit-summaries during review, extremely important, as a major vector for passing on know-how. Part of what I've done here has been to deliberately try to soak up all the lore I could from past generations of Wikinewies so I could continue passing it on to later generations (a temporary arrangement; I mean to make myself unnecessary in the long run). I have tried to extend our documentation; notably, WN:PILLARS is mostly a compilation of sentences each of which I'd written hundreds of times in review comments till I could recite them in my sleep. I also hope to embed further know-how into the semi-automated tools I hope to develop (yet another thing making that development more daunting). --Pi zero (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Automated tools? Coding? Javascript? Dibs :) - let me know if I can help. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Heh. I'll try to remember to provide you a bit of background on what I've been doing (not just atm; time for me to turn in, and tomorrow morning I anticipate reviewing). --Pi zero (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Two technical questionsEdit

  • How have you been going about finding those old unprotected articles? (Because I can think of a way, but am curious whether there's another that I'm overlooking.)
  • How have you been going about looking for external archives of broken sources? (Because it seems I've sometimes succeeded in that where you'd reported failure.)

--Pi zero (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sometimes really bored - some experimenting with the api / database queries / looking through logs
I've been putting the url in the archive.org search

--DannyS712 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

archive.org search? Hm. Oddly enough, I don't think I've ever tried that. When I've got a broken source url, I just manually prepend
producing things like
which seems to work if anything will. --Pi zero (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll try that next time --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, what was the way you could think of for finding them? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, for a moment I thought I saw a way to do it with a DPL; but on second thought I decided I'd been wrong about that. --Pi zero (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


Hello. Not sure about adding Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to this category. I think there is a difference between Secretaries of State / Foreign Ministers (yes they’re involved in diplomacy) and ambassadors / high commissioners / consuls (commonly agreed diplomats). Thoughts? -Green Giant (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Given how small the category was, I couldn't tell what the intended scope is. I think that Foreign Ministers that are involved in diplomacy (not sure about all of the countries) and the US Secretary of State should be included, even if they are not career diplomats, since they are still diplomats (political / appointed). --DannyS712 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... this may be a cultural thing but I see your point. In the UK we don’t regard the Foreign Secretary as a diplomat. We would reserve it for ambassadors and other envoys. I think they’re almost all career diplomats, whereas in the US there are some ambassadors who appear to be appointed for other reasons. The recently dismissed Gordon Sondland is an example of this. -Green Giant (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I understand why the divergence - in a parliamentary system like the UK, the Foreign Secretary gets to make policy, while in the US, the Secretary of State mostly implements the President's policy. Thus, in the latter the role includes more diplomacy. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi DannyS712. Please check this space.Edit

--Gryllida (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I'm afraid my wiki-related coding is mostly taken up by phab:T159299 at the moment. Also, that post is addressed "To reviewers", which I am not one, and I prefer to spend my script development time on scripts that I will be able to use (if only so that I can test them and make sure they work as intended). Hopefully that'll change soon (Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions#DannyS712 (talk · contribs – Edit rights) is still open) but for now I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help. Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


I had in mind to give you some constructive advice, when closing the RFP; alas, when I knew what I wanted to say, there was some activity in the discussion so I figured to wait a bit, and in the interim I've lost track so will have to try to reconstruct suitable remarks. If I don't get back to you on this, eventually it'll be time to remind me. --Pi zero (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to apply again soon, though hopefully the community can decide what the image guidelines are! I'm going to be posting someone where central soon (once I'm done with my current article). Are you on IRC? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I have seen that you have added interwikis to some articles. I think this should be handled on Wikidata. I use interwiki links in articles only if they link to or from Incubator. Maybe even that could be done through Wikidata, I don't know. - Xbspiro (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have just tried it, Wikidata still doesn't support interwikis on Incubator. - Xbspiro (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
At least for now, wikinews uses local interwikis, even if they are also on wikidata --DannyS712 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
<dropping in> It was a pretty solid consensus here on en.wn; I hope we'll always retain explicit interwikis. The fundamental principles of local visibility and local control featured prominently, and there's no technical change at Wikidata that could redress those. (Though there are measures that could be added to combine the strengths of local interwikis with the advantages of the central clearinghouse at Wikidata.) --Pi zero (talk)
Sorry guys, I did not know about the community consensus. There were instances (Q81776283, Q80792090, Q81328192, Q81482849, Q81718305) when interwikis were not added to the article, and I thought it is the norm not to include them - so adding them to the article seemed strange to me. (These pages had been protected by now.) - Xbspiro (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
We don't necessarily expect them all to be added (though it's a positive thing when they are); we do like to add them at opportunity, and we don't remove them merely because the information is also on Wikidata. --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed you created a new category, and did a bunch of other things. The ideal procedure is:

  1. You prepare the category.
  2. On its talk page, you compile a list of articles that would be in this category, and it would be better if you provide rationale, and tag it with {{Fill this category}} (FTC request).
  3. Then compile a list of redirects that should be created for that category.

This procedure works best for the archived articles. And when an admin/reviewer pair is unavailable to sight the edits immediately. We tend to avoid doing that out of order.
•–• —Preceding comment was added at 06:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would tag it for edits I couldn't make myself, but I could edit all of the articles myself. I've created Category:Qasem Soleimani, Category:Impeachment of Donald Trump, Category:COVID-19, Category:Elijah Cummings, and Category:Roscosmos (as well as a few others). For the first 3 listed, I could edit all of the articles myself (as was the case here) and doing so was fine. For the last 2, I posted on the talk page with {{Fill this category}}, and while Category talk:Elijah Cummings was responded to, Category talk:Roscosmos has been unchanged since October. In this case, a search (https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Pete+Buttigieg&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns14=1&ns0=1) showed that all of the pages that I would think of adding were recent enough that I could still edit them, and so I did. While the procedure you give above makes sense "for the archived articles", it doesn't seem to apply here. Is this "ideal procedure" documented anywhere else? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Please, check your IRC memo for the reply.
•–• 07:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Note for myself that this was   Done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing your Super Tuesday articleEdit

I hope to complete the Super Tuesday review this afternoon; taking a detour first for acagastya's railway article, which I hope will go reasonably briskly. --Pi zero (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikignome stuffEdit

Thought you might appreciate this bit of wikignomery. The {{w}} template is designed to flag out pages where it links locally, through a hidden category (c); the idea is to leave it in place until after adding the article (or deciding not to add it) to the locally linked target category. It's possible to do the categorization via HotCat and harden the link in the same edit, by clicking the "+" on HotCat to add a category, and entering the name of the category to add, but then instead of clicking "ok" to add that category, click the "+" to add another category; that causes HotCat to provide a "save" button at the start of the list of categories, which you can then click on, and instead of immediately submitting an edit to add the category, it gives you an edit panel with the categorization all lined up. You can then edit the page to also harden the local link at the same time. --Pi zero (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool --DannyS712 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I just click on the (++) near the word "Categories", then the + to add the categories in one go, then clicking "Save".
•–• 09:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


This is long overdue! --Bddpaux (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  The Order of the Modest Pencil

For completing 5 edits.

Great work! Keep it up! --Bddpaux (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


Could you please not remove them? If the author has used it, please keep them as they are.
•–• 12:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure --DannyS712 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleting redirectsEdit

While tagging redirects to be deleted in the pre-publish state, make sure you break the redirect. Just a head's up.
•–• 23:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "break the redirect"? I put the deletion tag at the top of the page, so it shouldn't work as a redirect... --DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Third death from Covid-19 reported in SingaporeEdit

Please see a question HERE. --Gryllida (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do when I have a moment, I'm busy coding, sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Handling archived articlesEdit

This is a pretty specialized situation, but it did come up, so: When editing an archived article that is directly categorized in Category:Archived rather than using template {{archive}}, do not remove the category before adding the template. Doing so could (depending on the date of the article) cause the article to appear on newsfeeds as if it were a recently-published article. I realize that might have been just an oversight, in the case that arose last night, but: that should never happen; please be very careful not to let it. (The same goes, btw, pretty-much infinitely more, if ever touching an old article that is categorized directly in Category:Published rather than using template {{publish}}; think of those as death traps, not to be touched unless you know precisely what you're doing lest something irreparable happen.)

I also strongly recommend against using, for this purpose, the trick I described to you a while back for combining customized edits with HotCat. It's way too important to avoid accidentally removing the category before adding the template, so an unacceptable risk of manual error would come from using HotCat for the purpose (because then you'd be telling HotCat you wanted to remove the category before manually adding the template, and it would only take a tiny slip with HotCat to cause the category to be removed first, which must not be allowed to happen). So, edit the article, manually add the template, be absolutely sure the template is correctly in place (use preview and carefully observe that the page is typeset correctly), and only then remove the direct category, either manually in the same edit (being very, very sure you've got the template correctly set up) or even in a separate edit to be super sure. --Pi zero (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I wasn't thinking (I know about DPL going based on order) --DannyS712 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 09:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 09:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 19:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)