Talk:Operation MB8

You think you rate?

Rating "high" since it's the over-arching operation to which Operation Judgement belongs. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Got a complex

In ref "complexity", any objection to including mention of complex, & failed, IJN operations, in particular Operation MO & Operation MI, as a point of contrast? And, if it can be sourced, some comment on why Cunningham made it work & Yamamoto couldn't? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mo' better judgment

I've had "judgement" changed here, but Stephen spells it "judgement", which I used. Is there an MOS issue? Or did Stephen boob? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Judgement is the British English variant, just as totalling is the British English variant of 'totaling'. User:Brad101 probably assumed they were mispellings rather than genuine variations. Operation Judgement is the version widely used in the sources, reasonable enough since it was a British operation, and since MOS suggests not changing from one variant to another in the case of a clear national tie, they should be changed back. Benea (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My spelling is a bit idiosyncratic (I switch back & forth between U.S. & UK as the mood strikes me, sometimes within 'graphs ;D), so I was less than sure I hadn't goofed, too. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is *THE WORST* wikipedia article I have ever had the displeasure of reading

I've read thousands upon thousands of wikipedia articles and this is by far the worst of them.

I happened to come here through a random link (from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamamoto_Isoroku), interested in what MB8 was. I read the whole article and was none the wiser.

The first part, the summary, the abstract, simply states when MB8 happened, what ships took part and what phases were contained within. The stuff that usually would be explained at this point would be things like the background, why it mattered, what it achieved, what was the point, what was the result and so forth. Reading through the whole article says nothing about these. The article is nothing but a few tidbits of information that are meaningless without any context, provided without any context.

For those who wrote this article, let me give you a counter-example: "It has a depth of 20 in. where it attaches to the fuselage; is 31 1/4 in. long at the top and 36 in. long at the bottom." Now, try to do something useful with that information without knowing the context. The point is, that is exactly what you have done with this article. It is not only useless, it is infuriatingly useless, because who knows, the subject matter might actually be interesting if it was explained, not necessarily even well, but at all.

I also find it disturbing that this article has 23 "references", but that they all point to four pages of the same book). -- 108.85.90.19 (talk · contribs), c. 10:54, 27 February 2014‎ (UTC)

I, too, was troubled by the lack of an overall narrative and context for the subject. But I commend the editors for collecting the details and citing references to create the basic information for the article. That's usually the hardest part. Now, all the rest of us have to do is fill in the supporting prose. That's the beauty of Wikipedia! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)