Talk:Operation Goldeneye

message: "Ultimately Francisco Franco, the dictator of Spain, declined to join the Axis Powers after Adolf Hitler refused to give Gibraltar and French North Africa to Spain."
Is this true? I was under the impression the reason was that during the talks between Franco and Hitler, Franco made too many demands for food and materiel. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain and WWII 

message: Surely this should be "Operation Golden Eye", not "Goldeneye"? If no-one objects, I'll change on this article in a while...  -  SchroCat (^ • @) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have missed something, but I think this should be 'Operation Goldeneye'. It has admittedly been spelled 'Golden Eye' in a lot of sources, including Andrew Lycett, but the most authoritative source for this has to be the primary one, ie the contemporaneous British government documents about the operation. I have some of these, from the UK National Archives, and they repeatedly call the operation 'Goldeneye'. The folder I have is a report by the Joint Planning Staff of the War Cabinet from March 31 1941, which is CAB 79/10 in the National Archives filing system: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C387085 But there are plenty of other documents about the operation at the National Archives, and you don't need to order them to see this because the same spelling is in all the descriptions, which are quoting from the documents' tables of contents. For example, please see: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C4123380 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9166692 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9166695 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9190702 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C9190706. I can't see any that are spelled 'Golden Eye' but am of course happy to be corrected if that is the case. Nicholas Rankin, in his 2011 book Ian Fleming's Commandos, refers to the operation as 'Golden Eye' in the text of Chapter 5. But in the source notes for the chapter, he writes 'further Goldeneye matters are in CAB 84/28/241'. I think this, plus the six primary documents about the operation I've listed, suggest that we should change this to Operation Goldeneye. If nobody objects, I'll change this in the article in a while. Jeremy Duns (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that part of the problem is that there isn't consistency, even in the National Archives: CAB 80/27/28 describes it as "GOLDEN EYE", for example. In secondary sources too, there is a split: a Google books search shows 30 references to "Operation Golden Eye" and 53 to "Operation Goldeneye". Although there is a bias towards the two words, the one word variant is still quite strong. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great spot on CAB 80/27/28. I've just ordered it, and will check what it is like inside. But, as mentioned above, there at least six other primary sources putting it in one word. Secondary sources are surely irrelevant here. As Lycett called it Golden Eye, others will have followed him, and so on. We just need to check the primary sources, because they are clearly always going to be the strongest source for what the operation was actually called. Even if every secondary source called it Golden Eye, it wouldn't matter if the primary sources don't. I'll check CAB 80/27/28, but that is still six primary sources to one for Goldeneye. Unless there are more, I still think Goldeneye has it. Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, secondary sources are more important in many cases. Article names are based on WP:COMMONNAME, rather than the "correct" name. In this case it's such a minor difference between the two that it's a toss up on either of them as to which is more common (or more correct) than the other. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: CAB 80/27/28 does indeed refer to it as 'GOLDEN EYE' inside the document itself, and not 'GOLDENEYE'. At a guess, these were different departments, different secretaries and so on - such an inconsistency was probably quite common. I don't see it as being a toss-up - six primary sources have it as a single word, and one as two words. And, according to you, 53 secondary sources have it as a single word, but only 30 as two. So the primary and secondary sources are both weighed strongly in favour of 'Goldeneye'. But apart from the fact that this is just one primary source and there are six other calling it Goldeneye, there's one rather common sense reason for presuming that it didn't have a space. Ian Fleming was involved in the operation, and he named his house in Jamaica after it. You'd have thought he'd have known how it was spelled. And he, too, spelled it with no space. Unless you can find five other primary sources for the space, do you or anyone else have any objections to me changing this? One option might be to call the article 'Operation Goldeneye' and use that spelling throughout the body, but make a small remark in an endnote that although most primary sources spell it this way, one doesn't, with the references given. Would that be satisfactory? Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: No, I'm afraid your officiousness in the last two days and on the other thread just now has worn me out. I'm not interested. Make the change yourself or leave it as inaccurate. I'm done. Life is too short to spend trying to improve articles with the little knowledge I have and spend days on end arguing the tiniest of tiny things with you. But very well done for your enormous victory on keeping a tiny accurate edit about Per Fine Ounce out of the Ian Fleming article by the person who wrote the article on Per Fine Ounce. Pat on the back. FA status. I'm enormously impressed by your diligence. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done for checking on the Fleming article: the change was made some time ago. Great investigative journalist you are. You will not be missed here. You have the wrong mentality, the wrong spirit, have not bothered to work out how things are done, have no idea what good faith is, and do not bother to read what others try and tell you when they are well-meaning. - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Hilarious - you deliberately made the change without saying so on the Talk page, while I was writing a response on that page, knowing I would not see it while I did so. No, you were never well-meaning. You just want to protect your little fiefdom. I am rather a good investigative journalist, actually, and I think my published record shows it more than having the right window open to spot the moment you make an edit without saying so. My journalistic skills and knowledge are why, in the end, kicking and screaming, you reverted every single edit of mine, admitting you were wrong on every point. You were wrong on this one, too: it's Operation Goldeneye. But yes, I do have the wrong mentality to be a Wikipedia editor. You have just the right mentality for it, though. Shame you can't weigh sources properly or admit when you're wrong, though. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Go on, then. We were having a discussion to reach consensus. Your last comment before you made the change was against it. Where did you announce on the Talk page that you had reached consensus with me on this and so would edit the article? Why did you not do that? Jeremy Duns (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I take that back - you did sort of indicate you were leaning towards consensus in your last comment. But you made the edit without first stating it on the Talk page. As I was replying to both you and Cassianto, who was then veering away from consensus, I happened to be on the Talk page and so didn't see you had reverted - because *you didn't say you had on the Talk page until after you did it*. Hardly very surprising. But sure, my journalism is broken by this. Get back to me when you've discovered something new about Fleming or Bond, please! Or anything, actually. I'd be interested in checking the sources, because you seem to have little clue how to weigh them. In the meantime, do enjoy arguing black is white for days with anyone who makes a small but accurate edit to impriove any of the articles you watch over. It must make you feel swell. Or, you know, do the research first like anyone with any common sense. Jeremy Duns (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Do you not care about leaving the inaccurate edit you made to the title of this article to stand? I actually have no idea how to change the title. And my patience with you was exhausted long before you spent *over two days* insisting on arguing with me about tiny edits I had made, all of which were accurate, without even glancing at the already-cited sources first. And you've yet again gone for this moral high ground posturing to avoid addressing my point: *you* sought a consensus discussion in Talk, then restored the edit without saying you had reached consensus in Talk - you *then* came to Talk, where I was still discussing it with someone else, to gloat you had already restored it and I'd missed you'd just done so without informing anyone. Hardly good faith! Hardly the point of having a discussion to reach mutual consensus. Please grow up. Jeremy Duns (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

text: As can obviously be seen, there was no consensus for the second discussion: there was for this. As per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY I think it behoves us to revert to the previous and correct name, which would be a revert of my earlier erroneous re-naming. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Name (2011)