Talk:Operation Petticoat

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: War / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

One engine or Two

I thought the Sea Tiger only had one engine running until use of the girdle to get a second operational?

Engines Three and Four were used for Engine One and Two parts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.136.117 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

I've trimmed around 12kb off this article by replacing the excessively long plot summary with a much briefer version from an earlier revision. --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to the ComSubPac, red lead and white lead-- Herogamer (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfield made an edit to the plot summary. I'm going to reverse several of the changes:

The abbreviated rank titles are correct and appropriate to use, especially given that the same sentence contains COMSUBPAC.
No need to say "Then" before first mentioning Sherman after the flashback starts; we've already established that this is in the past.
We should establish that the submarine is unpainted and not in full working order because both points get readdressed later.
I would not call Sherman's reaction to the early torpedo launch as "horrified disbelief". Also, the word "parked" in this sentence is redundant.
The way the sentence on the Sherman/Army interaction at Cebu is now worded implies that Sherman made the final decision to keep the nurses, when it is the Army officer who makes it clear that he will not take the nurses.
"Illegal" is not the right word to describe the casino. Yes, it likely violates military procedures, but it is just an exaggerated form of the scavenging for supplies that Holden does through the film. Note that Sherman only objects to the stealing of the pig; scavenging within the military, especially between services, has a long and honored history. (The Americanization of Emily is one of many films that depicts this.) In any case it is redundant as we've already established that Holden is a con artist.
Why the switch to passive tense for the two sentences about the pink paint?
No need to say "comes up with the idea" any more than this phrase is necessary anywhere else in the section.
No need to say "Returning to the present" since we establish that the flashback ends.
The bumper locking isn't nearly as important to the film's thematic flow (we've already established that Crandall is clumsy) as the repeated depiction of the #1 engine's backfires and black smoke, which is the very last thing that occurs in the film. YLee (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic rank abbreviations are neither reader-friendly nor appropriate (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations): "The full name should always be the first reference in an article..."). I should have expanded COMSUBPAC as well. The casino is illegal - you think Holden got the right permits to set one up? Why would you take out "Returning to the present"? Don't you think it would be nice to inform the reader that the flashback has ended? And how is two mentions of the cranky engine more important to the "thematic flow" than the car being dragged away? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That MOS page you mentioned specifically mentions military ranks as examples of exceptions. Terms like LCDR and LTJG aren't things Wikieditors made up to save typing time; they are official military terminology.
COMSUBPAC does not need to be spelled out; it is the name of the article. Like the officer ranks, it is proper and correct military terminology.
It's not clear whether the casino is actually illegal. Note that it is held in a public building with a long line of people seeking to enter and the MPs are only concerned about the pig stolen from the civilian farmer. In any case, my point is that a) military scavenging for supplies has historically been in a grey area that is officially not allowed but unofficially condoned, and b) the casino is just a more elaborate version of the scavenging Holden does throughout the film. "Illegal" is misleading because using it here implies that the casino is illegitimate in a way that Holden's other ways of obtaining supplies aren't.
"Returning to the present" is unnecessary because the sentence states that Sherman's remininsces are "interrupted". Not everything needs to be spelled out for the reader.
Mentioning that the car being dragged away is unnecessary because it adds nothing to the two extant examples the summary cites of Crandall's clumsiness. The problematic engine is a plot point that the film returns to several times, and is the closing shot of the film. YLee (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. There's a difference between LCDR (not in the MOS page) and Lt. Cmdr., and it doesn't say that the latter is a preferred way, only an acceptable one. If you're going to mention the collision, why wouldn't you include the dragging away? And I fail to see how the belching engine is a significant plot point. As for the way I rephrased the paint incident, it was my way of getting rid of "so must mix the two together", which isn't good grammar. "Returning to the present" is stylistically a good transition IMO; "reminiscences" doesn't come until the end of the sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That table isn't meant to be a comprehensive list of all acceptable exceptions; it has examples. (Otherwise one would have to conclude that "Major" and "Lieutenant Commander" can't be shortened, but "General" and "Captain" can. That's just dumb.) What is clear is that the specified abbreviations for military ranks are appropriate for use in Wikipedia, and I used the US Navy ones.
Mentioning the collision is sufficient to link the now Mrs. Sherman's clumsiness to her younger version's trait; there's no need to go into any more detail.
The belching engine isn't a major plot point, but is more important than Crandall's clumsiness; the torpedo scene would have been just as effective without the auto collision. We want to establish that the submarine still needs repairs when it leaves Cavite. Mentioning the engine's problems is a shorthand way to do so which is also apt because it does recur several times, including (again) the closing scene of the film.
There is nothing wrong with "so must mix the two together" grammatically. I certainly prefer it to far too many editors lazily using passive tense everywhere.
Using "Returning to the present" is a judgment call and the sentence certainly could be rewritten to use it. What is not a judgment call is keeping both it and "remininsces"; one or the other redundant. I chose "remininsces" because the CMDR at the start of the sentence subtly signals the reader that the flashback is over. YLee (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to consider. Look at Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea, both feature articles, and tell me if you see any ADM's or even Adm.'s. Ranks there are spelled out in full because that's what's best for the reader. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stylistic decision. I have no problem with spelling out the ranks in Wikipedia articles. I think the shortened terms are more appropriate in this article because of COMSUBPAC in the same sentence as the first use (and other ranks follow suit to maintain consistency, as per MOS). Similarly, it may make sense to spell out the ranks in articles such as the ones you cite in which non-US military ranks appear. What I do object to is your claiming above that the shortened ranks are inappropriate based on an incomplete reading of the MOS page you cited to support your claim. (Your excitedly mentioning your discovery that LCDR doesn't appear on that page was surely the high point of this discussion.) My point is that the shortened versions, which you changed, are acceptable for Wikipedia use. YLee (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You contradict yourself. You claim you have no problem spelling out ranks in full, but you're fighting tooth and claw not to. Pick any dozen articles at random in say Category:World War II navy films and see if there are any that follow your lead, and ask yourself why they don't. Meanwhile, I'll ask the people at WP:MILITARY to comment. P.S. You might want to avoid ad hominem cracks in future. (Lazy? Who taught you that the passive voice is inherently wrong?) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The point I've been repeatedly making is that there's no compelling reason to change the shortened rank terms once used as they are proper military terminology, and at least one good stylistic reason to keep them due to the presence of COMSUBPAC. (at the very least, one needs to cite a better reason than claiming that they're not "appropriate.") That's all. 2) Sorry, your proud little waving of the "Look! No LCDR!" flag was so mock-worthy that I'd have been remiss in not mentioning it. 3) Yes, using the passive voice is inherently lazy. The MOS does not prescribe against it (although people have proposed doing so several times) because the passive voice is necessary sometimes, but surely bad Wikipedia editors' incessant use of "it was revealed that" tires and annoys you as much as it does me? YLee (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a dozen films, but I picked three at random. 1) Mister Roberts: Inconclusive. Uses "Ensign" and the incorrect "Lt. JG", and uses "XO" which, despite its correctness and appropriate use to describe the position, I suppose you'd call as "cryptic" as "2LT" or "LCDR." (I disregard "captain" because it's unclear whether that refers to the Navy rank or the role of captain of the ship.) DISCLAIMER: I didn't remember when picking it but I've made a few edits in the past to this article; not the Plot section, however. 2) Destination Tokyo: Inconclusive. "Captain" clearly means "captain of the ship"; it can't be the Navy rank because US submarine captains are CMDR or LCDR (as Petticoat correctly mentions). 3) U-571: Inconclusive. Uses "Commander," "Lieutenant Commander," and the incorrect "Lt." Conclusion: Hardly a consensus for always spelling out ranks. (PS - Off topic, despite Petticoat being a comedy the US Navy behind-the-scenes cooperation clearly benefited the film. Its naval terminology, chronology of the Pacific War post-Pearl Harbor, and internal atlas are surprisingly accurate.) YLee (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. You call these three examples inconclusive? None of them use your acronyms. As Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable (an essay, not a policy or guideline) notes: "Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience." and "Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all." (bolding mine). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) They're not my acronyms. Wikipedia did not make them up. They are official US military terminology. 2) The presence of "Lt JG", "Lt.", and "XO" simply do not support your claim that always spelling out ranks is the right thing to do in Wikipedia articles and that the articles for other World War II navy films supports your assertion. YLee (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What possible benefit is there to using official U.S. Army acronyms? Last time I looked, Wikipedia wasn't a branch of the army.

Let's examine the first film with each letter in the World War II category. (Caveat: I've edited some of these films.) A - uses abbrev. (not U.S. acronyms); B - full spelling; C - full spelling; D: full; E: full; F: abbrev.; I: "executive officer" and "COB (chief of the boat)"; K: full; L: NA (no ranks specified other than "Captain" in the cast section); M: full; O: abbrev.; P: full; R: full, including "executive officer"; S: full; T: NA; U: full, with a lone incongruous "Lt."; W: full; Y: full. The majority spell it out, a few use abbreviations, none use official acronyms. If it makes you happy, change the ranks to the common abbreviations. I don't see any advantage to it (Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space), but the guideline allows it. I'm going to replace "XO" and "JG" as per the acronym guideline. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your analysis, like mine, shows that fully spelling out ranks is not exactly the consensus you claimed when you first proposed it, eh? The likes of "Lt. JG" are no more intelligible than "LTJG" and the latter has the benefit of being official US Navy terminology (which, contrary to your bizarre claim, Wikipedia does not eschew at all as any article on computers, space travel, astronomy, or pretty much any other topic demonstrates). YLee (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get it, then you just don't get it (or are unwilling to admit it). I've smacked my head against the wall of your obtuseness enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on taking the ball and going home after having failed to win on every single point. I do hope you achieve something else as meaningful as your great "LCDR isn't on that page!" discovery. YLee (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it has escaped your attention, I have 13 of 16 naval film articles, two featured articles, a couple of guidelines, and an essay on my side. Plus an editor from the Military project has spelled the ranks out in this article. You have ... uh ... yourself. You haven't produce a single article to support your position. I call that a slam dunk. Game over. As for the other details, well they're not worth getting into an unproductive edit war. I'm going to say this one more time (god knows why): a good editor should strive to make articles clearer to the average reader; introducing unfamiliar, unnecessary acronyms does not further this goal. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...An MOS guideline you didn't bother to fully read (and then drew a unwarranted conclusion from when this was pointed out), a study that does not conclusively support your thesis as you clearly were sure it would when you proposed it, and a repeated unwillingness to acknowledge that the so-called "unfamiliar, unnecessary acronyms" are a) actually used by the military service and b) no stranger than the jargon used by any other specialized field which appears in Wikipedia (and more familiar than many, given just how many people have served in the US armed forces). I look forward to your spelling out every single abbreviation across Wikipedia that isn't at the general familiarity level of "USA" or "NYC".

I have no problems with GraemeLeggett's edits, and wish I'd thought of his approach (spelling out, then the abbreviations) first; it'd have been a good compromise. Given your refusal to admit that the abbreviations actually exist outside my imagination, though, I am not sure it would have avoided this nonsense. YLee (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV series

Is there a reason the TV series doesn't have its own article? It would be no more of a stub than many TV shows. Krychek (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]