Template talk:DANFS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ships (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


In the interests of avoiding back-and-forth changes, I think this note should be italicized, because it's like a colophon or textual note in that it's a comment about the text, not part of the article proper; like one of those disambig notes at the top, which are also italicized. I observe that the 1911EB and other old encyclopedia notes are italicized as well, presumably for the same reason. Stan 01:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, why is the title of the work in DANFS not italicized? What makes it different from NVR, where the title is italicized?

Just thought the two looked funny together in DANFSNVR:

-- Pslide (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As the title of a published work, DANFS is normally italicized, but when an italicized word or phrase appears within an italicized context, it is doubly italicized, which makes it upright, the way a double negative equals a positive. The NVR is treated differently because it's a the name of database or something.
—WWoods (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, makes perfect sense now. Thank you! -- Pslide (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The NVR is also a published work. An English language dictionary is merely a database of words. The MOS doesn't address this issue directly but seems to indicate that generally, titles are italicized (smaller sub-components of large works are quoted). So, I think that Pslide's initial impression was the correct impression. The NVR title should be doubly italicized.--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Should this template include its own Category, such as [[Category:DANFS content articles]]? I noticed the 1911EB has such a tag.--J Clear 13:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pages on which this templates is used are now added to Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, per a request on WP:ANGurch 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please change this template to remove Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and place a noinclude note on the template page to add {{DANFS talk}} to articles tagged with DANFS. See the category page and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_15#Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_Dictionary_of_American_Naval_Fighting_Ships. Once this is done, someone who owns a bot will complete the transition. -N 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please add the wikiproject category [[Category:WikiProject Ships templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] to this template inside the noinclude. Maralia 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! TomTheHand 13:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Link parameter added[edit]

I have added a parameter to the DANFS template based on discussion at WP:SHIPS. It accepts an external link to a DANFS entry. If you don't provide a parameter, and simply use {{DANFS}}, it gives the same result as before:

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

Using {{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i2/iowa-iii.htm}} produces this:

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments. TomTheHand 13:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it a lot because it can often eliminate the need for the External link heading in the article which just makes for a cleaner looking article. How about doing the same for {{NVR}} ? And while I'm demanding things, how about making both {{NVR}} and {{DANFS}} capable of accepting dual links? Dual links can point to two DANFS articles when you have one ship that carried dual names during it's career. --Brad (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I can do both of those, but it may be a few days; if someone else wants to attack it first, please feel free. Does DANFS really have separate articles when a ship's name gets changed? TomTheHand (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen separate entries on the same ship. On a different note, though, Gatoclass recently mentioned that history.navy.mil links often don't work for him, so I suppose there could be an argument for two external links on this template, to accommodate both that site and hazegrey. Maralia (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes but remember this is the DANFS template, so linking to hazegray via the DANFS template seems out of place. --Brad (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hazegray has an online copy of DANFS. I believe it's a direct transcription of the books, while the Navy's DANFS is a living website that is updated and corrected, so I prefer the Navy's; however, I can see dual Navy/Hazegray links being a good reason to add two link support to the template. I will attack this, and {{NVR}}, this afternoon or evening. TomTheHand (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall now what ship I was working on where two links would have been required. I think it's safe enough to say that there are very few articles that would ever require links to two different ships on danfs. I've only had the once instance so far; not enough to require a change. --Brad (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention, what I had in mind was something like this: {{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i2/iowa-iii.htm|http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/bb61.htm}}

Which would result in this:

This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entries can be found here and here.

Does that look alright? Do we want it to be phrased in a way that specifically talks about the Navy's DANFS versus Hazegray's? Of course the extra input would be optional. TomTheHand (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good enough for me. Leaving it non-descript allows a dual link and that dual link can either be used for one or both sites, yes? --Brad (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, folks, I've been super-busy and haven't been on Wikipedia much lately. I've finally updated this template to accept up to two links, and I'll work on the NVR one next. TomTheHand (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are instances of DANFS having two articles for the same ship. Named LSTs are the largest group I can think of, with a stub-class article at LST-XXX and a longer article at COUNTY County. E.g. LST-344 and Blanco County. And I've recently seen others like Grampus / A-3 and George M. Bibb / Bibb. Plus, there are DANFS' equivalent of redirects, like "Ginko (YN-65) was renamed Mastic (YN-65) (q.v.) on 17 April 1943."
When converting DANFS articles, I've habitually included links to both history.navy.mil and hazegray.org because I found that they sometimes had differences ... e.g. different sets of typos. :-) Plus, a lot of "B-" articles used to be missing from navy.mil, though that has mostly been fixed.
—WWoods (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please add [[Category:United States government attribution templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] inside the <noinclude></noinclude> tags. Thanks—G716 <T·C> 04:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done SkierRMH (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with category inclusion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{editprotected}} This template should contain the following code:

<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships]]</includeonly>

so that articles with this template are put in the appropriate category. The above category is hidden, by the way.

For some reason, this category isn't in the template. Can some administrator please add it? --Eastlaw (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This needs further discussion, I think. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 15#Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships resulted in removing it from this template and instead placing it on {{DANFS talk}}. However, I notice the category is currently almost depopulated. It appears that a recent editprotected request to {{DANFS talk}}, intended only to standardize the formatting, was performed improperly, unintentionally overwriting the category inclusion. We should probably clear that up first, to restore the status quo, and ping WP:SHIPS and WP:Military History for a discussion of the merits of a hidden category on mainspace versus a visible category on talk pages. I think the former is probably preferable, as you said, but let's go through the motions since this affects many thousands of articles :) Maralia (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly support using a hidden category on the mainspace. Currently there a number of of templates (listed in Category:United States government attribution templates) that add articles to the hidden category Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government, or one of the subcats. The addition of the article to the category is accomplished automatically by adding the template to the article. If a visible category on talk pages was used, this would require a second template to be added to the talk page of the article - and that would require maintenance. I imagine that there will be three sets of articles - those with only the template on the article mainspace, those with only the template on the talk page and those with both templates. This will result in a mess.
(BTW, this discussion should involve more that just WP:SHIPS and WP:Military History, and thus I'm not really sure where it should be best discussed.)
G716 <T·C> 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, there already is a second template on many talk pages, which is supposed to add them to that same category (and only isn't doing so due to a recent error). I submitted an editprotected request at Template talk:DANFS talk to readd the category to that template in the meantime, as it was unintentionally removed in a recent edit.
As I said above, I think a hidden category on mainspace is probably preferable (on reflection, for many reasons—the main one being that many articles lack the talk page template altogether), but this is a change that warrants some discussion. If the category is added to this (mainspace) template, the {{DANFS talk}} template would be obsolete (and I'm fine with that, but it would need to be dealt with). Thanks for notifying WP:SHIPS and WP:Military History. Another project that may heavily use the template is WP:WPBIO; I have notified them of this discussion as well. Maralia (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Maralia. Let's restore the category to {{DANFS talk}} before jumping in with this. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Restoring status quo is a good idea - but I still agree with Maralia that a hidden cat on the mainspace would be easier than a cat in a talk page template. Also, a consensus here about this template needs wide discussion because other templates are affected. Regards —G716 <T·C> 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC).

(<--) I'm sort of lost on this subject. It would appear that DANFS talk had an error that removed the category and now it needs to be replaced. Secondly, it would seem that this template can be modified to replace the duty of DANFS talk? At least since I've been around the past year, the danfs category has not been used on the main page because it was unnecessary and cluttering. That's the way it should remain. --Brad (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Brad, what's changed recently is the introduction of hidden categories. The longstanding precedent was to place 'meta'/tracking categories on talk pages so as not to clutter mainspace articles—but now we have the option of using a hidden category on mainspace. As I see it, the main benefit to doing so here would be that all articles using DANFS text should already have this mainspace template (and therefore would get the category assignment), whereas many of them are lacking the {{DANFS talk}} talkpage template. Maralia (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, given the new explanation (combined with me having gotten some sleep), let me reverse what I said above. If we can add a hidden category through {{DANFS}} and eliminate {{DANFS talk}}, I'm all for that bit of simplicity. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this method. Results are less talk page clutter as well. Never a bad thing. --Brad (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize I would start such a huge debate. I just want to step in here to say that I agree with User:G716 that a hidden category in mainspace would be the best way. The hidden categories were a very good addition for the maintenance tasks of Wikipedia, and are just as good for attribution categories like this one. It's already being done on a number of other articles. While I admit hidden categories don't necessarily denote any "distinguishing" or "defining" characteristic for all articles within a given category, they are useful for attribution are useful for registered users such as myself not only for maintenance/updating purposes, but also for satisfying curiosity as to what other articles and topics were researched from a particular source document.

If it isn't too much trouble, could you folks give me a heads up on my talk page when you come to some sort of resolution about how to handle this? Thanks. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Disabled while discussion continues. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In summary[edit]

Eastlaw's proposed edit to this template is to add a hidden category via the insertion of this code into the template:

<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships]]</includeonly>

In light of the disabling of the "editprotected" template for this change, my read of the editors' opinions in the above discussion is summarized below. (if I have mischaracterized any editor's opinion, it purely unintentional.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. Support (as proposer of edit) — Eastlaw
  2. Strong supportG716 (per 02:49, 2 December comment)
  3. SupportNeutralMaralia (per 03:20, 2 December comment)
  4. SupportBellhalla (per 17:07, 2 December comment)
  5. SupportBrad (per 23:56, 2 December comment)

Well, apparently, according to Template talk:DANFS talk, the category has been added to {{DANFS talk}}, so perhaps this whole discussion is unnecessary...UNLESS you folks want to remove the category from {{DANFS talk}} and add it to this one. You decide what is best. --Eastlaw (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think from the way the discussion has evolved that handling it through Template:DANFS and a hidden category may be better than having two templates. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I support adding the category to this template, and deprecating {{DANFS talk}}, as the latter template is not omnipresent on the relevant articles. I have posted a note at Template talk:DANFS talk#Obsoleted? to make sure we are not missing any interested parties. Maralia (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion above and resulting consensus, please add the following code into this template:
<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships]]</includeonly>
Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done It Is Me Here t / c 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Do we really Need templates for DANFS and Cite DANFS[edit]

I would like to solicite comments on wether we really need 2 separate templates that do basically the same thing. I realize that the Cite DANFS template is designed more for use as an inline citation and this is more for a notification but I recommend we modify the Cite DANFS template so that if there is a flag set (maybe info-only= Yes) then the citation would display with the This article uses information from verbiage that this template uses. Does anyone have any opposition to doing this? --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reform the template output to enhance accessibility[edit]

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.
The entry can be found here.

Accessibility would dictate that the linked text should be descriptive of the link's purpose. The here isn't meaningful. Scanning the text generated by the DANFS template, the eye sees the end of the first sentence and then lands on here. The eye pauses and then reads the sentence: The entry can be found here. No real indication of where the link leads, so, the eye must now read the entire template output. Someone with visual impairment using a reading tool might have even more difficulty.

Perhaps the template output should be changed to read something like:

This article includes text from the {{PAGENAME}} entry in the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

Using the {{PAGENAME}} magic word (see Help:Magic words) would seem to mean that the changes to the existing {{DANFS}} template would be relatively mnor. Of course there is the issue of italics:

This article includes text from the USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659) entry ...


This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships‍ '​ {{PAGENAME}} entry.

I'm sure that there are other possible sentence constructs that would fit the bill.

And, while I'm thinking of this, the {{NVR}} template should be modified in the same way. In fact, I see no reason why both shouldn't output the same generic text. I've created a talk subject about re-wording the {{NVR}} template on the NVR talk page. --Trappist the monk (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please create a version at Template:DANFS/sandbox that meets the following requirements:
  1. Reads correctly for all testcases.
  2. Does not read incorrectly even if {{PAGENAME}} does not match the topic if the linked entry.
Then reapply {{edit protected}} Anomie 20:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request DANAS[edit]