User talk:Fukoku Kyohei

Type 5 Rifle[edit]

Do you have any sources that refer to the "Type 5" as the "Type 4"? Also, as far as I know, the Type 5 has always been referred to as that. Nohomers48 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the Japanese page and the translation of the firearm's name itself. The rifle was mistakenly named as such because Allied personnel uncovered the weapon during 1945, thus becoming mislabeled as "Type 5". However, there are minor disputes between the schematics of the one made in 1944, and the minor-improved design in 1945 leading some to believe that there were actually was a "Type 5" or that the correction is significant enough to become a different rifle. Nevertheless, I believe that the article should stick to the original name of Type 4. I would request or change the name of the article myself had I known how, but I'm still in the basic learning stages of editing and very new. Fukoku Kyohei (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about, instead of renaming the article, create a section discussing the Type 4/5 name confusion, because few in the English speaking world will know it as the Type 4. Also if you are going to use this option, list the sources you used so the idea doesn't get shot down by the admins. Nohomers48 (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping my head in the discussion portion of the article and dropping a line, right? I'll give it a shot. Though it may not be recognized as the Type 4, Type 5 is a incorrect and far too disputed name for it to be called as such. Fukoku Kyohei (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was thinking of putting the section into the main article, but that could work too. Nohomers48 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you meant including the name dispute factor in the article itself? The issue would be noteworthy to jot in and I'll be sure to do so after finishing the translation on the Japanese page, but I believe the article is to be correctly named first instead of keeping some mislabeled nomenclature. And if I haven't misread the guidelines, we're supposed to use the true name of the weapon and not a variation/moniker. Fukoku Kyohei (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, by the way, what is the Japanese publication that you speak of? Nohomers48 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to list the sites that cite the proper name, but the source that I can immediately direct to you now is the Japanese article. Thanks for helping me out by the way. Fukoku Kyohei (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem mate. I am unsure though that you're going to be able to have the article renamed to "Type 4 Rifle" but I have just read the translated version of the Japanese article and I believe that a translated version of that section should be included in this article.

Will do. If I screw anything up, don't hesitate to point me in the right direction. Fukoku Kyohei (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]