Talk:Air lock diving-bell plant

Correct pageview analysis here
|Air_lock_diving-bell_plant Correct pageview analysis

What's it called?
A couple of editors like "also known as the caisson diving bell barge"; but looks to me that it's described as a caisson diving bell barge, though no article is used at the source. I don't find this term anywhere else. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As always, you have decided the answer already and are uninterested in any sourcing or evidence to the contrary. You are editing to impose your dogma that all capitalisation must be removed: I have never seen you edit other than in this way.
 * This vessel was, AFAIK, unique. The article states this. Certainly there is no indication of another. It is a combination of caisson, diving bell and barge together. Yet you have gone to the extent of changing the definite article in here to the indefinite article, merely to imply that it was one of many. All in your crusade to downplay the term's use as a proper noun phrase, thus capitalised. Your actions here are not even OR, there is no 'research' to them, merely prejudice and dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you can't refute any of this, and have just switched to ad hominems. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. Listen to you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, ignoring your mischaracterization of my editing and motives, let's look at the grammar question. The vessel in question has been described in one place under a heading "CAISSON DIVING BELL BARGE".  That seems like a fair description of what it is.  No source mentions either "a caisson diving bell barge" or "the caisson diving bell barge".  Granted that's there's only one known (to us) caisson diving bell barge, should we therefore call it "the"?  Or is calling it "a" still more appropriate to go with such a descriptive term?  I prefer "a" which is why I changed it in a bold edit.  That got reverted so I'm trying to discuss it. I am not "uninterested in any sourcing or evidence to the contrary", so if you have some source evidence, this would be a good place to share it.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One (more recent) source, a Gibraltar newspaper, called it the "Diving Bell Barge" . The image in the source you've linked is htitled in all caps so it's ambiguous as to whether it's a proper name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Diving-bell barge" is a rather more common term. I think this one is more special by the inclusion of the air lock, but I don't see any evidence that it ever had a special name, though various references to it are sometimes capitalized. Nothing consistent in what it's called or how it's described. Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't merely a 'diving bell barge' (and they are indeed fairly common). It's a 'caisson diving bell barge', which is a different animal. As far as we know, unique. You have once again edit-warred to replace the definite article to imply that it was one of many; it was not. But, as always, you never let lack of subject knowledge stop you editing wildly and inaccurately across an article. At least, not when it's to support your only theme here: removing proper nouns and their capitalisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as the caption says, this is "Caisson diving bell barge built for the Admiralty for service in Gibraltar." Restrictive, without comma; not "Caisson diving bell barge, built for the Admiralty for service in Gibraltar." Kind of suggests that there could be others, too.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your evidence firstly that there are multiple examples of this, and secondly that on that basis it's not a proper noun, is no more than the absence of a comma?  Are you even serious? Your sophistry has, once again, become ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not have, and have not presented, any evidence that there is more than one of these. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We know you haven't. And yet you're edit-warring naming changes on the basis that you do. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should put "Gibraltar Harbour" at the start of the article name in lieu of a definitive article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's implicit in the scope here, and there's also risk of confusion with the two names running into one. Especially if it's renamed to "Gibraltar harbour". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. See if you both like. Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This source has image label "ENTRANCE TO A DIVING-BELL". So should we say it's also known as "the entrance to a diving bell"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That image looks like a painting to me, so perhaps that's the name of the piece of art and not a reliable source for the name of the vessel in question. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The image, another painting/artist's impression, on the page following is called "A transport's false speed" - we would be on uncertain ground to use that for determining the name of an article on that aspect of ship camouflage schemes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's the point. Other photo labels like "IN THE NORTH SEA" and "ON THE CLAN LINERS" are certainly not to be taken as proper names of things. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because they are not proper names, that's obvious. This is a farcial argument, about naming a unique construction. Broichmore (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The source with that "ENTRANCE TO A DIVING BELL" photo/painting apparently has this heading and text: (see and, though I can't find it in the source; it might be the text from this other source according to the commons info: "This image also appeared on the front cover of the Illustrated London News 25 March 1906.")

This no suggestion of a proper name here (not capitalized in a sentence), nor of uniqueness. Though it is "purpose built", there's no indication of whether others were built for a similar purpose. In Popular Mechanics it's described restrictively (no comma, not suggesting it's unique): "The air lock diving bell plant illustrated was built for..." Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Several points here. There are many references in the article along the lines that this vessel is the first, a prototype not repeated, that it is unique, and the only one in the world. As has been repeated elsewhere it was a bespoke item, and it was given several different titles by interested parties I'm currently leaning towards the Admiralty's title of a Caisson Diving Bell Barge as being the most efficient descriptor. Popular Mechanics is the least authoritative article referenced. The title on the picture there describes the scene not the apparatus.
 * Caisson Diving Bell Barge or Air Lock Diving-bell Plant are descriptive titles. "A transport's false speed" !!! whats that all about? What possible bearing can that have on this article or even subject. I know of no object named a "A transport's false speed" Interestingly enough Dickylyon has advocated that (should it exist) a painting of this title should be given as A Transport's False Speed, but not if its a ???. Bizarre.
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the definitive article on occasion when referring to a ship. There are more than enough examples of that in the language and literature. Indeed it's proper and correct usage to use it copiously; to not, is purely a matter of style and one not followed by sailors. Broichmore (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)