Talk:Chinese submarine 361

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese submarine 361 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

China Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Regarding my edit of the last paragraph of the "Mystery" section: the text was very difficult to understand since it was not written in proper English. However, while I tried to make it make more sense, I still question the validity of the claim in the first place: a diesel engine that is sucking out oxygen is producing a huge amount more gas volume than it is using as it converts liquid fuel into gas (which is how internal combustion engines work). I assume those resulting gasses are vented outside, but is that 100% correct? Does the submarine's ambient air pressure rise, lower or stay the same when running the engines? Would running the engines when not snorkelling or on the surface lower the atmospheric pressure? --Fitzhugh 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the picture on the article

The sail configuration of the picture in the article is that of a Romeo class not a Ming SS as the caption states. 12.187.232.194 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese submarine 361. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028152251/http://taiwansecurity.org/WP/2003/WP-050303.htm to http://taiwansecurity.org/WP/2003/WP-050303.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindsight bias in Wikipedia articles?

Recently I came across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I wondered whether this bias might also be present in this Wikipedia article... According to the hindsight bias, in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, predictable and/or inevitable an event was, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on accidents/catastrophes: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 So I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, – and whether the disaster is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against its occurrence? Apparently, the hindsight bias occurs because of a retrospective focus on information that spoke FOR the event while ignoring (or not taking seriously) information that would have argued for another outcome, which then, of course, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeability... This is why I wondered whether this article might also be affected by hindsight bias and should thus be checked again for this? --2A02:810D:1300:38E5:7D92:C419:92B9:F691 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

This page was moved without discussion on 20 April to "Chinese submarine Changcheng 361"; I’ve moved it back as there seems to be very little evidence of the name "Changcheng" either as an individual or as a class name. None of the sources use it, nor does the Chinese WP article. So So I have tagged that as dubious (see below), as well. I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim

The lead sentence here states this vessel is "named The Great Wall #61 (长城61号)", without any evidence to back it up. The information was added to the lead sentence in November 2008 with this edit, and has sat here unreferenced and making little sense (is the number 61 or 361?) ever since. None of the sources use it, and nor does the Chinese WP article. So I have tagged that as dubious. If it cannot be substantiated I suggest it's about time it was deleted. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]