Talk:Type 4 Chi-To medium tank

RfC about the names of relevant articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus suggests that for the sake of uniformity, ease of understanding and clarity, all articles documenting tanks should include "Tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end. Please see WP:MILMOS#TANKS for further clarification. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 18:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

---

I noticed that in the Category:World War II tanks by country there's a great differentiation in how the individual articles are named. According to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." Respectively, in the Category:World War II tanks of the United States (which is perhaps the most representative to English language articles on the subject), most articles have the word "tank" included in their titles: T14 Heavy Tank, T20 Medium Tank, T28 Super Heavy Tank, T29 Heavy Tank, T30 Heavy Tank, and so on. By contrast, in the Category:World War II tanks of Japan the word "tank" is never (!) used in the title of their models, i.e.: Type 1 Chi-He, Type 1 Ho-Ni I, Type 2 Ho-I, Type 2 Ka-Mi, Type 2 Ke-To, Type 3 Chi-Nu, and so on. I would suggest that some kind of linguistic uniformity here be followed throughout, for the benefit of our readership. Wouldn't you agree? — Poeticbent talk 18:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• I see what you are stating, and not all the others have the word "tank" after them. As for Japanese tanks, two have the word "tank" - Type 95 Heavy Tank & Type 98 20 mm AAG Tank. With that said, I would like to see what others state before writing my opinion as I think it over. Also, I would suggest this either be moved to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history board or at least post a notice there. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The new notice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Re: should the word "tank" be included in the titles of articles about the tank models. — Poeticbent talk 19:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think we had a similar discussion on naval gun naming recently where I think the consensus was that we follow the naming conventions used by the sources. I agree with that line of arguement - the question is how sources treat each model individually - do they suffix tank (or light tank, whatever) after a particuar model or not.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If it's a medium tank as the article states, then I think adding that to the title would be helpful per WP:PRECISION. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• comment It xxx tank is typical for that country/language and the RS, I'd keep it. Foreign names like Pz IV can't be confused with a love letter or a lady who waltzes. A standard for foreign types xxx tank or xxx seems feasible; moving the two inconsistent Japanese titles might work. Keith-264 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• comment It is common through out different RS sources for certain Japanese AFV's to have the word "tank" or "gun tank" consistently after the name, such as: Type 91 Heavy Tank, Type 95 Heavy Tank, Type 98 20 mm AAG Tank, Short Barrel 120 mm Gun Tank. And part of what they are is in the Japanese naming system, for example: The Japanese used ideograms to differentiate various weapons. The ideogram "Chi" meant a medium tank, "Te" a tankette; "Ke" a light tank, "Ho" (artillery) a self-propelled gun, "Ka" an amphibious tank. There was a second ideogram to distinguish the models. For example, the Type 97 Chi-Ha is a medium tank introduced in 1937, the Type 2 Ke-To is a light tank introduced in 1942.Kierzek (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This is the English Wikipedia and the common nomenclature for this type of weaponry is evidently "tanks". In the Japanese Wikipedia the term might be entirely different - or even absent as a common term for it. The point is, the user of English Wikipedia should understand easily what the subject is about. -The Gnome (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Add Tank to name (Summoned by bot) to be helpful. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Add Tank (Summoned by bot), as per above. Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any survivor?

Hi, just read in this article that one completed tank was recovered by US troops from a lake in 1945. Any info of what happened with it? Was anything related to this design preserved? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

According to one source, a prototype of this tank and the Type 5 Chi-Ri were eventually scrapped. see Status Report: The final fate of the Chi-Ri.

Fuel type

I just noticed the infobox states a diesel engine is used, whereas the development section refers to a gasoline engine. I'm not familiar with the source cited for either (Appears to be different volumes of the same book) and don't otherwise know which is correct, but hopefully someone else can help. Damp Cuttlefish (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Checked cited RS book and corrected scrivener's error. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)