Talk:Type 096 submarine

This article deals with a military black project.

Because of the nature of such projects, the most authoritative sources (any involved governments and defense contractors) may not even acknowledge its existence. The most reliable sources may be highly speculative.

Please ensure that the article is well and reliably sourced and does not contain unverifiable information or vague predictions.
For more details, see the black project working group of the military history project.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / Asian / Chinese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

China

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Requested move 10 July 2018[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
Support-for Consistency and Use commonly recognizable names.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The target is occupied, so clearly this can't go through as proposed. Dekimasuよ! 22:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

NATO reporting name[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]