Talk:USS Pampanito

message: Towards the end of this article, a "clean sweep" is defined as "all torpedoes shot", which is wrong. What a "clean sweep" means is all targets in a particular convey encountered have been sunk. Also, it is implied that the Pampanito archived this on her last patrol, which is untrue, no matter how you define "clean sweep" (her last patrol was uneventful as far as targets are concerned). The article should state or imply that the broom attached to the periscope shear (which signals "clean sweep") is in place to show a decoration popularly affixed to those submarines returning to their home port which had achieved the total destruction of a convoy (a clean sweep). It is a museum, after all, they have license to expand or embellish their display for historical reasons. Pampanito might have returned to port with a broom in the shears after one of her war patrols but certainly not the last one, and the definition of it is wrongly given in this article.
Just saying.
:Thanks for the inspiration!  It transpires that the article was wrong, but you're not entirely right, either.  Please see the new article "clean sweep (naval)." ➥the Epopt 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

message: See:
* http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/08/BAG6RNEJJI1.DTL
As time allows, we should incorporate this info into the article.
Atlant 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be retrofitted again 

message: This is a nice article, with a good amount of references.  The references could be improved somewhat, say with finding a reference for the ship having appeared in a movie, and not having been out of the Golden Gate for 50 years.  But overall it is a good article, with a nice pic, with lots of information in infoboxes.  I'd like to help bring it up to Good Article status.  Beforehand, what should be fixed up?  What I would do:
#obtain the NRHP Inventory/Nomination document and photo set about the ship, which is often a 10-20 page document written by a historian and various editors, which is definitive about the reasons for NRHP/NHL designation and which is a great source for many specific statements throughout the article.  For most NHLs, this document is available on-line at the National Park Service, but for this one it has to be requested and sent by postal mail.  I will put in the request now.
#otherwise try to use in-line citations (footnotes) to support statements throughout the article
#put in specific quotes, where appropriate, from the DANFS source into the article, and remove the general DANFS disclaimer
Comments?  Suggestions?  Sincerely, doncram (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the DANFS summary, have a look at , which is a GA. The DANFS disclaimer still exists, but the individual information is also cited using the regular citation system. The DANFS tag should stay regardless. -MBK004 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I was hoping to develop the article so that it was not necessary to display a general DANFS disclaimer.  If the text is merely paraphrased, adapted slightly from the DANFS source, then I agree that a general DANFS disclaimer must stay. doncram (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I find that the DANFS-adapted text is only in one section of this article, and it occurred to me that a section-specific DANFS tag would be appropriate and better.  Not finding one, I created a template "DANFSsection" to implement this.  This template has now been discussed and criticized in the talk page of WP:SHIPS, by the way, and it seems not to be as obvious an improvement as I thought, or at least not to have obvious applications elsewhere.  However, in this article, I think that its use works to calibrate readers' expectations appropriately about the authorship of the wording in the article.  And applying it to just one section should help clarify for readers and subsequent editors that the statements outside that section are not supported by the DANFS text, and need to be evaluated on their own merits. doncram (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New question, relating to trying to make the DANFS sourcing proper.  The DANFS material supports all the material in the one section, I believe, except for the stricken date at the very end which is from another source, Friedman.  The footnote for the Friedman source, appearing at the end, could appear like it means to cover more than just the last fact.  I've just seen a different treatment of DANFS material, in an article up for Featured Article, in which the DANFS source is footnoted at the end of each paragraph in which DANFS material appears.  So 30 paragraphs in that article are footnoted.  It does not use the DANFS section template, which is a new draft and just being tested here.  Would it be excessive/appropriate to remove the DANFS footnote from the section-leading DANFS notice, and add the DANFS footnote to each paragraph?  I guess i could try it and we could see. doncram (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  develop for Good Article nomination? 

message: I'm starting to upload the usable pics I took of the boat when I toured it last February.  It looks like the folks who have taken pics of the sub so far didn't get on it, so this will provide more detailed views of the inside and deck.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 15:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pics to work with 

message: , which is berthed in Alameda and is also a museum ship like the Pampanito that doesn't go anywhere, also does this.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So does the  and , but I don't have cites off the top of my head. This thing is fairly standard for museum ships. -MBK004 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ,  ,  , and   do it too.  I think  used to do it, and they may still, but Google's not pulling up any info.  I think it's unusual that a boat as small as Pampanito does it; WWII fleet submarines are tiny. TomTheHand (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sleepovers 

message: "USS Pampanito (SS-383/AGSS-383), a Balao-class submarine, was a United States Navy ship, the only one named for the pompano fish. "
This article shows that this is not the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pompano  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.19.55 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence of the article doesn't make sense 

message: The facts presented concerning the terminology of "ship" and "boat", and of the apt pronunciation of "submariner", even if they may be correct, are entirely irrelevant to the section, page and possibly even website they are in (not to mention completely uncited; consider wiktionary). Aotoda (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph of "Museum Ship" section 

message: The Pampanito article states Pampanito sank Rakuyo Maru, while the Sealion (SS-315) article states she was sunk by Sealion. 2600:8802:4516:B100:1C40:92A:8A2E:9F6A (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rakuyo Maru