User talk:DannyS712

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)

Miscellaneous neatifying[edit]

A couple of stray thoughts on neatifying articles. These are edging into territory where a mere gesture toward the style guide won't suffice.

  • The ordering I've followed for trailing elements on an article has been, after the last section (which is usually Sources, unless an optional External links section is provided), {{publish}}, {{archive}} (once applied), categories, interwikis. Thinking back to where I learned that ordering from, I think our now-venerable review gadget was crafted to try to do things that way, only that particular bit of its code never quite worked right, so it was often necessary to move {{publish}} down after the gadget had inserted it in between two of the sources, or the like. That gadget is a major piece of our existing automation written in the Before Time (another major piece that comes to mind being makelead); that code is scary to contemplate changing much, so we mean eventually to replace it with an assistant based on the dialog tools, but meanwhile I think within the past few years the code has been tweaked so it just puts the tag at the end, which isn't what was intended either, and I fix it when I'm archiving each article, but at least it doesn't insert the tag into the middle of the list of sources.
  • I've been observing your hardening of local links via {{w}}. Afaik everything you've done has been fine, but the nuances of using {{w}} are complicated, so I'll take the opportunity to ramble a bit on the subject. Before we deployed the current {{w}} template (in early 2011), all our wikilinks were hardcoded, and despite a long-established policy that local links should be used if available, almost all wikilinks were hardcoded to go to Wikipedia. The only local links were ones that everyone knew were sure to have local links; mostly, countries and US states. That makes sense because it avoids distractions from the really difficult fundamentals of news production (accuracy, neutrality), but it made Wikinews feel less like an independent project and more like an appendix of Wikipedia, and it created a huge amount of finicky busy-work if we ever dared to create a new category, which strongly discouraged expansion of our category hierarchy. As more and more of our articles (also slowly expanding backward into our archives) use {{w}} we can instantly shift existing links to a new category once it's set up, and the motivation has shifted from discouraging new categories to encouraging them. Category coverage has increased markedly, increasing fractions of wikilinks are local, and the project feels more independent. Meanwhile, at the level of individual wikilinks: part of my notion was that when {{w}} links to a local target, it categorizes the article in Category:Pages with categorizable local links, when it links nonlocally, Category:Pages with defaulting non-local links. The categorizable set are articles where one might consider adding the article to the corresponding category (if it's related enough); the defaulting set are suggestions for possible future creation of categories.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. If you want the gadget to put the publish tag at the end (or is there another place that is preferred?) I can take a look at the code. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing NewsDay, I didn't know pubtarget existed as a parameter so we can pipe publishers. Anyway, I am going to continue writing the article now. I'll tag it {{editing}} just so we don't get edit conflicts. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem - I didn't either until I looked at the source for {{source}} --DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Exceptional newcomer award[edit]

For demonstrating exceptional enthusiasm and skill in confronting the initial learning curve of our project, I present you with the Exceptional Newcomer Award. --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I realize I'm a bit late with this; you've already received a barnstar, and you've ten published articles — one more (with one on the queue now) and you'll qualify for a cub reporter award. Still, we've noticed the energy you've applied to learning Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: thanks so much --DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Contributing Reporter[edit]

This award is presented to Wikinews reporters upon their 11th published news article.

Congrats. --Pi zero (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviations and acronyms[edit]

Hi, there's absolutely not any written policy I can point to for this, but I think we should allow for more 'compression' in image captions and or image credits. I would never abbreviate w:United States Department of State as "DOS" in the body of an article, even though Wikipedia says it is the main acronym for the department. A non-American reader wouldn't know what "State Department" is, either, in my estimation. Most countries call it the Foreign Ministry or some variation thereof and a non-familiar reader would have to click the link anyway to understand what is meant. And in the image credits, especially, I feel it is only for the truly curious. Anyway, these are just my thoughts on it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: sorry, I didn't mean to overstep. I just thought that, since it isn't used in the article, it shouldn't be cut to DOS. Again, sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries. You are not wrong to do it. I know you are frustrated that our guidelines aren't fully fleshed out, so I just wanted to explain my thoughts. I haven't reverted your edit; I'm just saying imho (or maybe not perceived as humble opinion) it was unnecessary. You didn't overstep or anything. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow up --DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: do you think you could help me populate Category:Cabinet of Donald Trump? If so, please add the category to the following (protected) articles:
And also add wikilinks to Cabinet of Donald Trump. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
A fairly bold addition, but I can't say I disagree, so I populated as best I could. I also tweaked the category page. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
See response on the category's talk page about your tweaks --DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

create missing comments page[edit]

Hi. I saw you created a couple comment pages for articles in the deep archive. I wouldn't do that until we get around to putting the {{haveyoursay}} button in the article. Also, it's a lot easier when the button is there because the missing page can be created with a single click. And there are thousands of articles which don't have comment pages yet.

Are you eager for something to tinker with? Are you familiar with Wikidata? --SVTCobra 03:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I made a few, because I wanted to make sure I got it right when I created the comments for Riots in Tonga, which is linked from Sitting Tongan Prime Minister Akilisi Pohiva dies aged 78 (currently on the main page). At some point, I'd like to be able to help out with cleaning up the archive, but since those pages are protected that isn't going to be likely. And yes, I am familiar with wikidata. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's not quite the archive, but a lot of our categories need to be linked with Wikidata. If you look at Category:Cornell University which you started the other day, I made some additions to it (not just populating the category). One of the sisters fields in {{topic cat}} is wikidata. It is missing for a lot of our categories, so it needs to be put in with the Q number. The easiest way to find it is to go through the Wikipedia page or Commons category which corresponds. And then, we need to update the Wikidata entry. Oh, shit LOL. I just saw you have 75K edits there. OK, then. Well, I'll change my tone, since that's your turf. At some point or other, somebody ran a bot or something. And our categories became associated with the Q number for "Category:Something" but we want it to be associated with "Something" directly, so when people look at Wikipedia's page for w:Cornell University they will see Wikinews right there in the left hand column under "In other projects".
You can see my wikidata:Special:Contributions/SVTCobra edit history for how I have been switching them over as I semi-systematically update our categories. Adding links to other sisters is also helpful. Images can be added, and where applicable, flags, location maps. I think {{topic cat}} has a list of the available parameters and optional parameters. Are you familiar with Wikidata LOL. --SVTCobra 03:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe you came here to get away from Wikidata, so this might not interest you. Maybe you are interested in becoming a reviewer? You could read Wikinews:Reviewing articles and Wikinews:Tips on reviewing articles and do mock reviews on the two articles I have submitted. Make the changes you think are necessary and write a comment on the talk page. And then if Pi zero doesn't make any changes when he does his review, I'd say that's an A+ 100% score. Becoming a Reviewer is definitely the first step towards Adminship because without understand the review process we wouldn't let people muck about in the archives. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Yes, I've been thinking about that - I posted at User talk:Pi zero#Working towards reviewer a bit ago. I'll take a look at your articles though --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
(cc SVTCobra) There was a bot that did a bunch of those, yes. That was one of the several times over the years I've politely left a note on someone's user page there letting them know there's a policy in place there about Wikinews topic categories. (I've learned to be decisive and friendly about it.) Which has had good responses in all but one case, where the person I contacted threatened to block me if I continued following the policy (that got quite unpleasant; but most Wikidatans in my experience have been quite friendly folks). At any rate, the bot hasn't run since. --Pi zero (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, btw (fwiw), there's a further complication when creating missing opinions pages for old articlesUser:SVTCobra: occasionally it turns out that there really is an opinions page, that was left behind by a rename after it had been created. So before creating a comments page for an article I always check the revision history for moves that might have left the opinions behind. --Pi zero (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the note --DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Quarry:query/36472 lists the 7000+ enwikinews categories that have a wikidata item with the description "Wikimedia category" - I'll look into reducing that number, given the explanation above --DannyS712 (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: currently migrating categories from the category wikidata item to the topic's item --DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Legislation article[edit]

Thanks for your help with organizing the sources and various fixes and whatnot. I think it was good to separate out the news sources and the myriad legislation text sources. Thanks again, —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 21:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mikemoral: no problem - if you look above, I'm working towards becoming a reviewer, so I try to take a look at all new articles and help however I can --DannyS712 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It's certainly good practice for learning to review articles, and it definitely helps with clearing the reviee queue. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 22:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi. I am surprised you are not reporting on: this --SVTCobra 01:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: haven't had a chance yet. If you want to start something, I can be a second set of eyes? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Symbol wait.svg Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, good. Yes, I could write it, but that just puts more pressure on Pi zero, so thanks. --SVTCobra 01:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging in edit summaries[edit]

Since templates don't get expanded in edit summaries, to get a working pin I think you need to code a wikilink (using double-square-brackets). --Pi zero (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I realized as soon as I saved - I meant to use [[User:__]] Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


You have some experience at Commons, what do you think of what I said here: Commons:Template talk:PD-CSPAN. I think that template is wrong. --SVTCobra 01:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Will take a look --DannyS712 (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2019 (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:
  • 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: --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: --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)

Wikinews recent additions 02:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 09:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 21:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 01:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)