Talk:Type 96 tank

message: Does it make sense to split this article into one on the Type 80/88, entitled Type 88, and another on the Type 85/90/96, entitled Type 96, since these models appear to be based on two separate lines of research? —Michael Z. 2006-10-04 04:07 Z
:Personally, I think so.  There's no reason that many models of tank should redirect to the same current model.  Not to mention that article is getting ridiculously long in lists.3R1C 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now splitted the article in accordance to the suggestion.--MoRsE 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: Besides the cost, another reason is that the latter(the type 99) was too heavy for the soft soil in southern China whereas the lighter Type 96 is better suited for these conditions.
It seems unlikely that the whole of southern china would too soft-soiled to be used by heavy tanks(its a big country!). Besides the type 99 is only 6 tonnes heavier than the Type 96 so the difference isn't all that great. Also, at 54 tonnes the type 99 is still much lighter than the M1A1 Abrams and i've never heard of any restrictions on the use of an Abrams. It seems likely that more tank units were stationed in the north because:
1: Traditionally, the greatest threat of land invasion came from the Soviet union.
2: The desertic areas of northern China are better suited for large-scale maneuvers than the densely populated coastal regions.
So i've added a  tag.  Raoulduke47 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft soil in southern China? 

message: Is it simply because of its Type 80 lineage? Or are they trying to say that the basic tank is considered second generation, while the upgraded version is 3rd generation? The wording is very confusing here. 184.64.72.53 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this tank considered a second-generation? 

message: The article being labeled as Type 96, it seems to make little sense to put a Type 90 picture next to the title. It may be related, sure, but then again, so is the Type 59. 68.145.212.169 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The logic behind having the Type 90 picture on this page 

message: Hi all
I'm proposing renaming the page as the Type 96 tank.
Reasons as follows:
1) Removal of disambiguation. There are many things called the Type 96.
2) Precedence in both the Chinese and Japanese (probably more) wikipedias
3) Unlike western tanks with names, they are designated by numbers and  it would make more sense to add the tank suffix 
I would like to extend this to the other chinese tank pages too.
-RedArrowSG (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the page 

message: Hi all,
The Type 90 does not actually belong on the Type 96 page.
The chassis is entirely different. The Type 90 chassis has the driver position in the center ala the Type 98/99. It is actually the prototype (no serial production) of the Type 98/99.  The type 96 on the other hand, has its driver position on the left side, continuing on the design of the Type 59/69/88 series. 
The Type 90-II is also actually the MBT-2000 as offered by Pakistan. Source of this nomenclature is the Worldwide Equipment Guide for the US Army's use. Page 5-40. The same document also lists the Type 88C as the early version of the Type 96 (and I've inserted the info as such on the Type 88 page)
PDF link
Dennis J Blasko also corroborates this nomenclature.
The thing I'm not so sure about is this: should we consolidate all Al-khalid/MBT2000/Type90 information in one page, or to separate them by nationality. While information on the Type 90 is lacking, it is a true indigenous Chinese prototype AFV. 
I propose that one of the following 3 actions could be carried out:
# Have a small article/stub on a Type 90/VT-1 page
# Merge Type 90 sections into MBT-2000/Al Khalid page
# Merge Type 90 sections into Type 99 page
# 
1) would probably be the best recognition of the Type 90/VT-1 as Chinese designations and the Al-Khalid/MBT2000 as a mainly Pakistani tank. It will also remove the seemingly orphan information about the MBT-2000/Al Khalid and its operators on the Type 96 page. Lastly as a result of the above, it will help keep the page brief and concise.
2) would probably muddle things up even more.
3) is acceptable as well but I would prefer only mentioning the Type 90 as a prototype.
RedArrowSG (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move Type 90 sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Type 96 tank. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified