Talk:Jaguar Mark 2

Unsourced comments

A number of POV, unsourced comments are spoiling what is otherwise an interesting article. The anonymous editor who keeps inserting them needs to undertsand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and claims made in the article need to be properly referenced from verifiable sources. "Many people" isn't good enough, find a proper source or leave it out. Putting in unsourced factual details because you "know" them to be true isn't good enough either - put up a source please. --Archstanton 09:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also deleted the reference to the unremarkable coincidence that John Thaw had starred in the Sweeney as well as Inspector Morse because Thaw hadn't been mentioned in connection with Morse. The comment assumes that the reader knows Thaw was the star of Morse. If it's such an important detail, then really Thaw needs to be mentioned in relation to Morse first. --Archstanton 09:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay okay enough already! Some people do really have a sense of their own self importance don't they?! Your points are entirely valid but the way in which you put them across is sanctimonious and unnecessarily pious. On a point of pedantry (as it seems to be the adopted style here), the previous paragraph did in fact refer to John Thaw’s role in Morse. That said the changes you made add value to the article but the attitude you use to communicate them perpetuates the self appointed stuffiness of the Wikipedia police.

Name

Surfing the net gives both "Mark II" and "Mark 2". This article uses both. Which is correct? Does anyone have any authority for either? Avalon (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason no one replied to you before is because most people think it doesn't matter very much. Both uses are common as you indicate. If you are old like me and had to master Latin in order to be permitted to study at an English university, you like to use the Roman numbers to show that you think you are clever and to preserve a tradition, but my son says Latin is a dead language and uses Arabic numbers whenever he has a choice because ... well, that's for him to say: I think it's to annoy his father. If you have a strong preference, feel free to apply it. Otherwise, rejoice with me that Wikipedia allows you to set up disambiguation pages. Which in this case someone seems to have done! If you live in France there is a French academy which preserves the purity of language for you. If you live in Germany you are struggling even now with the Kohl government's Rechtschreibung reforms which were intended to make German easier to learn and to use. But I live in England, and if any government here, in the US or anywhere else where they say they speak English, started making rules about correct usages of my language, I would laugh. I suspect the engineers at Jaguar in the 1950s were more interested in developing, building and selling great cars than in the difference between 2 and II. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is, strictly, "Mk 2". The Jaguar Mark V of 1948, and its successor, the Mark VII / VIII / IX of 1951-61, were always identified by Roman numerals. In those post-war years, Roman mark-numerals had a certain Establishment cachet, and therefore marketing value, because they were used by the RAF up to 1945. (Remember that Armstrong-Siddeley made post-war cars called Lancaster, Whitley and Hurricane, and that, even in the Sixties, the Triumph Spitfire and, across the Pond, the Ford Mustang were best-sellers.) For this reason, and for sheer consistency, the Jaguar Mk II and Mk X of the 1960s are often given those Roman numerals, but in fact the sales brochures, and the boot badges on the actual cars, say "MK 2" and "MK 10". Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)