Talk:Type 87 Chi-I medium tank

Chi-I Designation Source
Can anyone site the (historial) use of the Chi designation for medium tanks prior to 1936? Since from what I know about Japanese tanks, it wasn't until around that time that they first started using that system and prior to that used the -Go system of designation with the Ha-Go being, afaik, the last tank to use that designation. 2A02:A443:FA31:1:C030:E4F7:96C1:B56D (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of re-writing it out here; see article and section therein: Tanks in the Japanese Army. WP:RS cited to General (ret.) Tomio Hara (the father of Japanese tanks) and Andrzej Tomczyk. General Hara states the Type 89 I-Go prototype was known as the "Prototype No. 2", leading to the designation Type 89 when standardized. Then he calls the second version the Type 89B Chi-Ro. Steven J. Zaloga just calls the first version the Type 89A and second version, the Type 89B. Offically, they were known as Type 89A I-Go Kō (version 1) and Type 89B I-Go Otsu (the second version, sometimes known as Type 89 Chi-Ro). Later, the designations were expanded (besides the prior "model year" based on the Japanese calendar used to identify all army equipment); around the time of the Type 95 Ha-Go light tank and Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank. The "second designation system" was to separate different tank types of the same given year. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue about title of the article
I apologize for ignorance about Wikipedia and bad English. Due to it I don't know how should I modify article so I'm writing about this issue here.

Title of this page is "Type 87 Chi-I medium tank", but there are multiple problems.

About name

According to the reference book, name of the tank was "試製第1号戦車" and it was translated to "Experimental Tank, No 1" in the book. In addition, there aren't any mention that it was called 八七式 (Type 87) or similar names.

Reference:

原乙未生, 栄森伝治, 竹内昭, 1978, 「日本の戦車」出版共同社, p.65, NCID: BB16081636

(translation: Tomio Hara, Denji Eimori and Akira Takeuchi, 1978, "Japanese Tanks", Shuppan-Kyodo-sha, p.65)

About "Chi-I"

According to the book written by retired officers of Army 4th technical research institute (陸軍第四技術研究所) including Tomio Hara, code name of "Chi-I" was assigned for "Type 89 Medium Tank".

Reference:

四研会, 1982, 「四研史 : 第四陸軍技術研究所の歩み」, appendix 1-6, NCID: BN12957806

(translation: Shikenkai, 1982, "Shikenshi: History of 4th Army technical research institute")

Shikenkai is group of retired engineer and officers of 4th institute.

As shown in references, this tank was never called "Type 87" or "Chi-I". Because of it, I thinks this is inappropriate as the title of the article and it should be replaced to "Experimental Tank No.1". Aizenns (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This has already been addressed and explained, see my response above from 21 May 2018 to the prior thread. Also see the article subsection, linked above in the same reply, which is WP:RS sourced. It is true that it was initially known as Chi-I and Experimental tank No. 1, but later when the tanks were given official designations, that was changed. Again, as explained in the article. Further, you’ll see where Chi-I is part of the official designation and Experimental tank No. 1 is listed as the a/k/a (alternative name) for the tank. Therefore, there’s no reason to change the title of this article. Kierzek (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I want to say that name of this tank was never changed to Chi-I or Type 87.
 * In addition, Chi-I is assigned for Type 89 light/medium tank so this tank should not be called as it. Aizenns (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At least, as far as I know (its basis on my memory which is non-reliable "original research" so it is not suitable for Wikipedia), there's no any mention that it was changed as it in Japanese sources. Such name is not known in Japanese-side so it is difficult to find reference to deny that it has been renamed to such a name.
 * For example, there aren't such mention in Japanese wikipedia article of this tank. Aizenns (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I used Japanese sources, English and Polish RS sources when writing this article. My work speaks for itself. It’s not original research (OR). There is no reason to change the title. I Have noted in the past that Japanese Wikipedia, which in and of itself is not a reliable source, does not have all the tanks and variations listed as English Wikipedia does. It’s not complete there. Further you have no consensus to change the article title. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstood due to my poor English but I did not want to say that you used original research. Your article does not have original research.
 * I have large question that in spite of no Japanese source says it was Type 87 Chi-I or similar anything title of this article is it, but I understand your opinion and reasons. Thank you. Aizenns (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)