Talk:Type 096 submarine

Requested move 10 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Can't move. As has been noted there is another article in the way. The options are either to propose another title for this submarine article, or propose to move the other submarine article as well in a multiple request. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Type 091 submarine → Tang-class submarine – Rename to NATO name, as is common with other submarine pages such as the Akula, Typhoon, and more. Following WP:TITLE for Consistency and Use commonly recognizable names. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposed name is ambiguous and there's an article there already on the other class. Maybe relist and discuss options? Andrewa (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment : this should be a grouped request and discussion with Talk:Type 035 submarine#Requested move 10 July 2018 and Talk:Type 039A submarine#Requested move 10 July 2018.
  83.228.159.212 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC).
• Support-for Consistency and Use commonly recognizable names.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The target is occupied, so clearly this can't go through as proposed. Dekimasuよ! 22:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Skjoldbro and Vinegarymass911, exactly what are you proposing? No competent closer is going to simply delete the article on the American post-war class, currently at Tang-class submarine. One of the two articles would need to be disambiguated, and the precise names for both need to be decided before this RM could be actioned. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

See also WT:AT#Submarine classes and consistency, but this particular RM is the only one that raises the disambiguation issue, so that issue should be discussed here. Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Note also that RMCDbot has posted a heads-up at the proposed target talk page, and also that there's a related discussion there at Talk:Tang-class submarine#Requested move 22 March 2016. Pinging BilCat and Llammakey who arrived at a strong consensus there and are currently active but not yet involved here (the third participant there has since been indeffed as a sock). Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Tang type-96.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

NATO reporting name

Some sort of official source is required for the use of "Tang" as the reporting name. The 2020 US DoD report ([1]) consistently identifies the class as "Type 096 SSBN", whereas it uses "Jin" and "Type 094" interchangeably. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk · contribs) the Type 096 is listed as Tang in numerous news articles including this from Forbes [2] and Globalsecurity.org: [3] others too. Lankyant (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)