Talk:USS Clamagore

Untitled
How many personal were aboarded when it took its last tour

Another suspicious name
Neither Google nor FishBase nor unabridged OED has ever heard of a fish called "clamagore", either in English or a foreign language. So this may be another one of the made-up names. Stan 12:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How should we characterize the source of the name? "Alleged" doesn't seem quite le mot juste. The description, "a blue parrot-fish found in the West Indies and Chesapeake Bay", sounds fairly specific, though on consideration the range seems perhaps too diverse, and maybe Chesapeake Bay is an implausible place for a parrotfish. —wwoods 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also "said to be". I didn't tumble to the Chesapeake Bay ref the first time, obviously implausible for parrotfish and perhaps an inside joke, or else there used to be other types called "parrotfish" not mentioned in FishBase (one of my authoritative fish books from the 1960s mentions names for which there are zero Google hits, so lack of Google hits is not actually proof of nonexistence). Stan 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 'So there we were, having a few beers after work, and talking about--in addition to our serious problems--what to name the next batch of subs. "Clam!", George said, holding up a fried one. "We've never named a boat the USS Clam." Well, yeah, we said. We've never named a boat Barnacle either. Who'd want to go into battle as one of the 'Fightin' Filter Feeders'? "Hey", said Jimmy, "I stepped on a razor clam once; I needed ten stitches. My foot was a gory mess." Hmm, a gory clam? "You're in the Navy, son", said Chuck, "you've got to say 'Clam, a gory'". Clam-a-gory? Clamagore! "Good enough", I said, "who's got another idea? And who's buying the next round?' —wwoods 06:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * :-) Stan 20:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The crew apparently thought their boat was named for a parrotfish &mdash; see the patch I just uploaded. ➥the Epopt 22:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

Got the source - Jordan & Evermann, Fishes of North and Middle America (1896-1900), p. 1652, listed as a common name for Scarus coeruleus. Obvious in retrospect perhaps, it being the definitive reference work in the first half of the 20th century. :-) They describe the fish as being found as far north as Maryland, though not actually inside Chesapeake Bay. (Probably other mystery names could be found in it, but slowly, since common names are apparently not indexed.) Stan 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits that rephrase DANFS text or put DANFS text into quotes
An editor, TomTheHand, by the edit description for a recent edit, objects to at least some of my recent editing in which I rephrased some text differently than the wording in DANFS, and I put some direct quotes from DANFS material into quotation marks. These edits of mine related also to identifying some material in the article that is not directly supported by in-line citations, which I marked with "citation needed" tags. I am happy to discuss these edits and where the article is going, here. By the way, I have been developing the List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina, a list of 77 mostly new articles which covers 4 ships including this one. doncram (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to the pre-existing version. My apologies for the wholesale reversion, but choosing individual edits wasn't an option. By all means add citation needed tags, but I'm disappointed to see that you are attempting to continue your 'PD text in quotations' crusade at an individual article after copious discussion at WP:SHIPS, WP:Citing sources, and WP:MOS failed to draw significant support for your proposed change. Maralia (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doncram, if you do not stop and discuss and gather consensus for these changes, which has not happened, I will block you for disruption and edit warring. Consider this your ONLY WARNING. -MBK004 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed a second editor, Maralia, apparently also objects and undid my last Undo. Note, Maralia, that I made many more edits to this article than merely adding quotation marks, by the way. Among other things such as adding other references, adding text, and rewording some existing text, I had also edited out the DANFS general disclaimer. So the simple change implemented by TomTheHand and repeated by Maralia, actually put the article into a poorly referenced status, while I feel that I had improved the article. A lot of stuff has been said in other forums, but please discuss this article here. If you think my edits overall did not improve the article, by all means say so, however please do not just strip them out, or selectively strip out the quotation marks that I added for some direct quotes. Now I see that TomTheHand repeated the strip of quotation marks. doncram (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doncram, it seems to me that you have been unsuccessful in multiple venues to implement these changes regarding PD text and are now gaming the system to have a test case to prove your point. The community of editors who edit ship articles, and other articles that heavily incorporate PD text, have made their positions known, and as Maralia has stated, support for these changes does not exist at a level to be implemented. Please do not try to re-introduce these type of changes again without notifying all parties and gaining widespread community consensus. My warning about the block for disruption still stands because of this, and if necessary, I will raise the issue at the appropriate places to propose a topic ban. -MBK004 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I did note that you made other changes; did you note my apology for reverting wholesale? It was impossible to revert an individual edit at that point. You are well and fully aware that your conviction that PD text belongs in quotations is not widely supported, though, and this is at least your second attempt to agitate for change by taking it to individual articles after policy challenges were not successful. Maralia (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maralia, you did not revert wholesale. I removed the quotation marks, Doncram reverted me, and you reverted back to my edit, only removing the quotation marks.  Doncram's other work has remained.
 * Doncram, you've participated in discussions on this issue many times before, and you are well aware of the objections to your actions and the fact that they are supported by neither policy nor consensus. Do not make these edits in the future without establishing consensus, and do not revert-war with people while ordering them to "discuss on the talk page".  Our objections are well-known to you and have also been described in our edit summaries. TomTheHand (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Doncram continues his campaign to force quotation (or deletion) of "hated" public domain text at Bathhouse Row. -- SEWilco (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Appearance in Blue's Clues?
When I was little, I watched Blue's Clues a lot and in an episode entitled "What's Inside?", the mailbox segment showed two kids looking inside a submarine that resembled the Clamagore. I researched that episode and found nothing, can you see if you can find anything? 2001:5B0:28FF:1EF0:0:0:0:37 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I did some research on that episode and found out it was the USS Growler (SSG-577). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5b0:28ff:ef0::3e (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for being sunk as a reef
Can anyone please tell me how and maybe why funds will be approved for this submarine to be sunk as an artificial reef and why this submarine will be sunk as an artificial reef? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Scheduled to be sunk as an artificial reef by 2021
She seems to still be at Patriots Point as of February 2022, so this statement should be removed. Does anyone know her current status? Implacable18 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * USS Clamagore submarine will be destroyed and recycled, museum says - CNN 69.23.89.166 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)