Talk:Type 96 25 mm AT/AA gun

message: There are still some really serious issues to address with this page:
*The most glaring and serious problem is that the title uses the convention "25 mm" (i.e., with a space) instead of "25mm" (without). The article title should be changed (or moved to an appropriately named page).
*The article needs some serious Wikification. In fact, I think I will throw that tag up there as well.
*There seems to be a lot of duplicate, irrelevant and extraneous information in the article. Since I am no military expert, I cannot trim it down and clarify it myself.
*Due to the language of the original article, there may be a lot of factual inaccuracies due to misinterpretation. These should be addressed as well.
*The article is still confusing and awkward to read. The cleanup tag is still there for a good reason!
I intend to keep working on what I can. I hope that the copyediting I did has made the article at least a little less intimidating to the community. --InformationalAnarchist 8 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
:It seems that the title problem may not be a problem at all, since most pages about cannon seem to use the number-space-units convention(e.g., "25 mm") rather than the traditional notation (e.g., "25mm"). Maybe we need to do nothing, or maybe we should create a page with the alternate notation that re-directs here? --InformationalAnarchist 8 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)
The bottom photo entitled "A triple-mount anti-aircraft installation" is obviously a scale model and not a very good one at that. I would recommend it be removed.RZid (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some further issues to address 

message: I'm not sure about the AT/AA designation for this weapon. I know that there was a Japanese 20mm weapon so designated, but I've never heard it applied to this weapon. Just because it may have been used as an anti-armor weapon does not mean it should be so designated.--172.190.50.79 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designation 

message: I don't think this is correct: "…second in effectiveness to the Type 98 100 mm anti-aircraft gun." The Type 98 was a 20mm gun. The Type 14 was a 100mm gun. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Japanese Navy introduced a dual purpose 100mm (3.9in/65cal) gun on its later destroyers, often mounted in double turrets, called the Type 98, a superb weapon. It is this model weapon being referenced. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akizuki_class_destroyer_%281942%29174.79.0.29 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 98 100 mm anti-aircraft gun 

message: I don't like the title. At the very least, "Gun" shouldn't be capitalized. Whenever I link to this article, I'm forced to write (bracket)Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Gun|Type 96 25 mm gun(bracket) so it doesn't look stupid. Other articles don't say "20 cm/45 3rd Year Naval Gun", they say "20 cm/45 3rd Year naval gun", because the designation is "20 cm/45 3rd Year", which is a naval gun. 
Next, I dislike the "AT/AA" (notice I left that out as well). I doubt that is the official designation of the gun. How about "dual-purpose gun". I am sure it was not designed as an anti-tank gun (where does the Navy fight tanks, anyway?), and therefore would not be designated as one. Perhaps it was USED against tanks, at some point, but not designated "AT/AA". The German 88 was always a "Flak" gun, even though it was used as an AT gun). Personally, I wonder if the person who made the article isn't confusing it with one of the Armies 20mm (or maybe 25mm) guns, which would be an entirely different gun, as the two services never shared weapons.
Next, is the official designation "25 mm"? Other Japanese naval guns are measured in cm, not mm, just like German guns are. Shouldn't it be "2.5 cm"? Also, other naval guns list the caliber of the weapon after the bore size (12 cm/45). Perhaps it was officially a "machine gun" and thus classified differently? I've found articles that appear to have been written by someone, possibly Japanese, with a poor grasp of English, which repeatedly referred to it as a "25mm machine gun"; perhaps they know something? Or maybe they just translate badly.
I'd like to see "2.5 cm/60(?) Type 96 dual purpose gun" or "anti-aircraft gun", as that is likely the official purpose and designation..45Colt 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title.