Talk:USS Cod

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Cod article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cleveland Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.ClevelandWikipedia:WikiProject ClevelandTemplate:WikiProject ClevelandCleveland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ohio Low‑importance

	Ohio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article 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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Brotherbenz (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.
Paul Farace (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Arrgh

The spec box edit says "DANFS says 3 inch, but the statistics imply 4 inch, upgraded to 5 inch.Arrgh." Obviously this is somebody who doesn't know U.S. subs were upgraded as the war went on, with 4"/50cal or 5"/25cal, depending on availability & refit. (BTW, the 4"/50s came from retired S-boats.) I changed it to the "as built" 3"/50 AA popgun. Any comment on including fuel amount? Trekphiler 10:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As built Cod was fitted with the typical 4" 50 caliber and got the 5 inch wet mount in Dec. 45.... Paul Farace, USS Cod Director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.6.229 (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actual site situation of the Cod

I visited the Cod in 1981, while living in Cleveland. It was only one visit, but I don't recall this ship as "floating", on the waters of Lake Erie, or the Cuyahoga River, (both of which are within site of the ship--at that time), or any "body" of water. It was sitting on dry land and propped up with strut-like buttresses. One walked across grass and climbed a ladder to the deck. Unless the ship has since been returned to watery realms, I think the description of the ship as "floating" needs to be revised. Perhaps, in the last 26 years they have put the ship in the water, but I believe that its being on dry land was a preservative matter. One did enter, leave, and move around the ship via ladders and hatchways, as described. Could some one verify this and make revisions if appropriate? I have made no edits to the text, itself, particularly since I don't know if the term "dry docked" would fit my description, above. Also, note the date of my visit. Someone who has visited the Cod since that date should verify.Petroniares (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a lifelong Clevelander, I can assure you Cod NEVER rested on a cradle. She was always afloat in Lake Erie off N. Marginal Rd., about 1000 feet from the Rock Hall of Fame. Paul Farace, Cod crew since 1976 and frequent visitor since 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.6.229 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of thing you could easily have checked before making your comment (you could visit their web site, visit other web sites about submarine museums, or just look at the location in Google Earth/Google Maps). Yes, the Cod most certainly is afloat in Lake Erie at the present time.

Most of these articles about museum submarines are weak on "current status" of the submarine. This particular article includes text which has "POV" problems, and it may get edited out at some point. Here on the talk page, there's no such issue, so I'll say right here that USS Cod is one of the very best preserved, displayed, and interpreted museum submarines in existence. It is a marvel. That said, it is also worth noting that there is no museum associated with it. The submarine plus a few small displays sit on the lake front by a very small park. Tours are generally self-guided. Finally, the fact that the submarine has not been modified for public access (like most other submarines on display) significantly limits access to those who are capable of climbing down a vertical metal ladder through a rather small deck hatch. It's an authentic experience, but it's not for everyone. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

There is a good respository of free pictures of the ship here. Mostly inside views, but there's a good body shot. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahoney

Did Mahoney sponsor the 'launching' or the ship itself? And did she launch the ship, too? And who was she anyhow? Glatisant (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer... Mrs. Mahoney's husband was a foreman at the shipyard. He won a lottery to select a boat sponsor, (wives of skippers lost in combat were often sponsors, as were spouses of high ranking sub commanders). Sponsors simply broke the champagne bottle upon launching while declaring the name of the boat. A worker would pull a lever that allowed the boat to slide down the ways when the sponsor swung the bottle at the bow. She got flowers, a diamond brooch, the silver encased sponsor bottle, and was enrolled in the international society of ship sponsors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.6.229 (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed for this article

This is a brief statement to clarify one of the points made in the article on the U.S.S. Cod. The author states in the Museum Ship section, "..and is the only U.S. museum submarine that has not had stairways and doors cut into her pressure hull for public access."

There is at least one other GATO class on display, the U.S.S. Drum in Mobile, AL, that has her pressure hull fully intact as well.

She is currently diplayed on land and access to the ship is via a wooden stair case that leads to the main deck. Entrance and exit from the interior of the ship is made through the original hatches the crews used in World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.233.193 (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction... The great Drum, first of the Gatos into service, certainly has had the typical staircase cut into her torpedo loading hatches. Razorback, on display in Littlerock, Ark., like Cod, uses her original hatches and ladders, but she has been modified for Cold War service, so is not strictly a WWII configuration. -- Paul Farace, Cod director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.6.229 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Balo class restored submarine in San Francisco. This model and type is very close to the Galo type. Pompiano is also a museum piece which has been restored immaculately. Her one claimed to fame is a 'clean sweep'. This is denoted by the broom facing up on her counting Tower. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pampanito_(SS-383) Hockeyman65 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content copied from Cod web site

Much of the content has been copied from the Cod web site. I suspect this was done with permission, perhaps even by staff themselves. But there really should be a note in the References section or here on the talk page that this was done with permission so we don't run into WP:copyvio. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have our permission to use content from the Cod website. Paul Farace, Cod director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.6.229 (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that offer. I'm no expert on copyrights but, at the bottom of http://www.usscod.org/ is this:

Everything that appears on Wikipedia must be unencumbered by such restrictions because everything here is made available to anyone and everyone to use or reuse for any purpose.

I have tagged the article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engines

In several places, the article states that Cod had five engines. The Gatos had four engines, as correctly stated in the sidebar. 98.192.124.141 (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cod does indeed have five engines. Three auxiliary engines and #3 and #4 main engines, all in after engine room.

Cod crew member. Brotherbenz (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true today, but the boat was built with four 16-cylinder main engines and one Cleveland 268 inline 8-cylinder auxiliary engine, so this part is wrong: "The submarine's five V16 diesel engines were built by General Motors Cleveland Diesel Engine Division on Cleveland's west side." I don't have a source, but the statement is unsourced anyway, so I'm going to change it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cod's Commanding Officers

Patrols 1, 2, and 3 were under the command of Commander James C. Dempsey, USN; patrols 4, 5, and 6 were under the command of Commander James "Caddy" Adkins, USN; and patrol 7 was under the command of Lieutenant commander Edwin M. Westbrook, Jr., USN. When recommissioned in 1951, Cod was under the command of Captain Francis E. Rich, USN, and was placed out of commission by Captain Joseph L. Adelman, USN.

Wiki seems to put in a new rule about this for it to only be about the ship. Being a crew member aboard the Cod I feel we should still honor her Commanding Officers on this page because they were just as much apart of that ship. Brotherbenz (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI

@Brotherbenz: Do you have a conflict of interest with respect to this article, as defined in the COI guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have a COI with the article. I just want the correct/accurate information to put be on the page as per Wiki's rules and guidelines. Brotherbenz (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

@Brotherbenz: Why do you prefer the unusual "ym" format for dates lacking a day of the month? This format is explicitly prohibited by our MOS. It is also inconsistent with the dmy format we use for everything else in this article. None of the sources I checked, including the ones from the museum and the official Navy ones, use this format. Normally if we're going to defy the MOS we would first get consensus on the talk page, but that never happened and you are the only one advocating for this format. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now I'm totally confused. Why did you do this [1] ? Should we just remove the "Use dmy dates" template? GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I entered the date. Also, found this: If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page.

The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page.

Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

Which the dmy have been used Brotherbenz (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then shouldn't we use dmy dates? GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the dmy on the page. Brotherbenz (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was. Brotherbenz (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Restored to the last good version. YYYY Mmmm and YYYY Mmmm dd date formats not allowed by MOS:DATES. No doubt good stuff was removed and for that I apologize.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, re-added it. Brotherbenz (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]