Talk:Mark (designation)

Military usage
From what I have read this term is historically used in Military circles (rifles, tanks etc...) and now more widely in technology as an incremental car variant indicator (eg. Volkswagen Golf Mk. V). Can anyone shed any light on it's origins? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briansammon (talk • contribs).

the mark system not used by the us?
I read somewhere that the US doesn't use the "mark system" in identifying models. Instead, they hold a contest among arms companies to submit a new weapon and they are given IDs "M1", "M2" etc.. I'm skeptical of this, so is this true? That would mean that the "M16" was the 16th model, for example, submitted in a contest for a new assault rifle when it was introduced. --Philip Laurence 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the M17 is no more a "Mark" designation than F16 in fighter jets is. It's just a model designation, not a revision. I suspect the same is true of the tanks listed here: M1, M2, M3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.224.159 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. For an authoritative source, see MIL-STD-1464A, Army Nomenclature System, May 1987, Section 5.1.3.2 (page 9): "Type classified (M).  The letter M, used as a prefix, shall designate an item that has been type classified".  The US military does sometimes use "Mark" as a revision designation, e.g, Mark 48 torpedo, but the "M" prefix used for things like M16 rifle and M60 tank, doesn't officially stand for anything.  I've most often heard it supposed as an abbreviation for "military", but that's unreliable folklore at best.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While the Mark / Mod system is not used throughout the entire US Military, the system is still in active use in the US Navy. I'll add some information on it to the article page under the usage section.  I don't have time to do anything extensive, but I'll put in some links so at least we can find the information.Bosef1 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark disambiguation pages
A project is underway to provide disambiguation pages for Mark I, Mark II, Mark III, etc, all the way up to whatever makes sense for a dab page. Some pages are already finished, others are being worked on, with moves and redirects taking care of articles that are sitting on the proposed dab page. Some pages will be built from scratch. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Style
What is the preferred style, (eg.) Blemheim Mark Is or Blenheims Mark I? MrFlibble (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See Postpositive. MrFlibble (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This has also been brought up on the Blenheim page, but "Blenheims Mark I" seems to me to be a totally unnecessary piece of affectation. What sounds "natural" is generally better than what sounds plain silly. The analogy with (say) "Queens regnant" doesn't really hold water, IMHO. It is the Queens who are plural, and they are incidentally queens in their own right rather than Kings' wives. It is drawing rather a long bow to say that it is the Blenheims that are plural, and they happen to be Mark Is. The name of the aircraft is the Blenheim Mark I, and if it is plural then the "s" goes after the last element. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this more common in the UK than in the US?
From a cursory glance this system seems to be more common in the UK than in the US, especially outside the military. Is this true? If so it should be noted in the article. -- 77.7.167.132 (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)