Talk:Type 89 I-Go medium tank

Fixes

I still see Chi-Ro (Medium 2nd) word in the article. Once again, https://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2017/03/theorem-on-newly-discovered-tanks.html This article states that Chi-Ro (Medium 2nd) and I-Go (1st Model) are different tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exec228 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the romaji, which was missing long vowels. CHI-RO as a designation appears in this article, the source used claims it is "commonly transliterated" as such, and apart from those two references, only one other site uses it. That's not common, nor is it correct, so I removed it. As for the numbering, I will need to look into it further because of possible differences in military usage, but it is likely that the designation of "I" is also wrong (in this case it is supposed to be a roman numeral I, not a letter I). That being the case, it is likely that the article title is wrong per MOS.

Nevertheless, barring a military peculiarity (which is why I added a feasible rationale), letter counting follows Japanese alphabet order, which is a i u e o ka ki ku ke ko... etc. i is therefore 2, and not 1, unless the military either doesn't use a or in fact does use the initial sound to represent the number (which would lead to potential overlap). Effectively, it's saying (using an English example) that the letter B is used for the number 1 and we don't use A. This usage is easy to verify.

This is pretty easily verifiable. MSJapan (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No - the Army designation system was based on the traditional iroha poem:

i ro ha ni ho he to

chi ri nu ru wo

and not by order in the Japanese alphabet. Therefore "i" = "イ" corresponds to "number 1", and has no connection with the Japanese word "ichi". I have removed reference to "ichi" from the article. --MChew (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that, actually. Thanks. MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, How 1-Go (or i-Go) [1st number] could be transliterated to Chi-Ro? Confer Medium Tank 3, which is marked as Chi-Ha. According to Iroha, Chi-Ha is Med-3. Chi-Nu is Med-10. Therefore Chi-Ro is Med-2. I agree that Chi-Ro is indeed Med-2. That's quite straightforward.

On the other hand there is a kind of parallel naming could be seen with Type 95 tankette. It has another mark "Ha-Go" (3rd model) at the same time with mark "Ke-Go" (light model). Check the row with Type 98 Ke-Ni (Light-4), Type 5 Ke-Ho (Light-5), Type 2 Ke-To (Light-7), Type 4 Ke-Nu (Light-10).

But I cannot imagine how "1st number" could be pronounced as "Med-2". Explanations? Probably i-Go (or 1-Go) is just a parallel designation to Chi-№ system, not interconnected linguistically. Linguistic link between "1st model" and "med-2" must be excluded from the article. Exec228 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Afaik, the Chi-Ro is an entirely different tank to the I-Go, since there's an old photo from 1937 depicting two unknown tanks doing trials near a training facility in Manchukuo, which could possibly be in time for the trials to decide which tank would be the Type 97 medium tank. Also, there isn't much evidence, afaik, that the Japanese retroactively renamed prior tank models. 2A02:A443:FA31:1:E598:C35F:4802:724F (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. I took the time to source what is known to reliable sources in this article. Kierzek (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Chi-Ro designation on the former Aberdeen example

Just had a friend share some photos of the vehicle with me. It seems that the Ordnance Training Support Facility has done away with the signage labeling it a "Chi Ro" and instead is just calling it an "I-Go" these days. Might be a good idea to remove the mention of that designation from the survivors list being that Fort Lee is no longer using it. AdmiralJmman (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

If the photo can be authenticated, I would suggest uploading it to WikiMedia Commons into the Category:Type 89 I-Go folder therein. You need to be careful as one can contend that what you claim and the edit you have made is WP:OR. Read per link. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood, I apologize If I got ahead of myself there. As for authenticating the photo, is there a guide on how to do that anywhere? AdmiralJmman (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Best I can suggest again, is to upload photo to WikiMedia Commons into the Category:Type 89 I-Go folder. Adding needed info, such as photographer's permission (which you must have and show), his name and date taken, clearly showing what you claim. The photo will speak for itself. Go to WikiMedia Commons and follow the directions therein and if need be ask for help. That is easier to do then for me to try and explain it all herein. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Will do, and thank you very much! AdmiralJmman (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)