Talk:I-201-class submarine

Department of Corrections
I've seen the "I-200 class" always called I-201. What's with that? Trekphiler 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems you're right. Shall we name the article "I-201 class submarine" instead? PHG 12:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's 'I-200' in the sense of 'I-20x'? Combinedfleet.com calls them Sen Taka type.
 * —wwoods 08:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I-200-class was name given for the Type-E Submarine. Mystia Lorelei (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge
There is an undeveloped duplicate page at Japanese submarine I-201, might need a merge. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. This is the article for the class of submarines while the other is about a specific vessel of the class. Loosmark (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I-201-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027100212/http://pacerfarm.org/i-400/ to http://www.pacerfarm.org/i-400/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I-201 class reverse engineered?
The ships were captured by the US Navy, but there is nothing to indicate that any reverse engineering or copying was done, and one studies were performed. I'm changing the wording unless someone can actually provide a source on that. 2600:1700:6000:9CA0:34B7:C4D1:7E2E:617D (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have already said, to do a hassle free constructive edit, we need valid individual reliable sources. If you manage to find some, then you're welcome to change accordingly. Until then, move your goal towards finding the source rather than adding anything that too is not reliable. How does that even help the article, replacing a non reliable content with another? AbhiMukh97 (Speak) (Contribs) 10:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not how burden of proof works. If some user adds information with a bunch of claims, then it is the responsibility of that user, not others, to find proof. Right now you're literally justifying keeping unsourced (frankly bogus) information by making others find the source. By the way, I've searched for sources, and I also have books on US submarine development, and there is nothing to support the ridiculous notion that the US "reverse engineered" the I-201. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)