Talk:Mark VIII tank

Requested move

I am consolidating a series of disambiguation pages that begin with Mark I, Mark II and so on, up until we run out of notable weapon, product and vehicle marks. I would like to have this page's name be devoted to a disambiguation page that lists various "Mark 8" and "Mark VIII" things such as this tank, the Cromwell tank, the Harry Hopkins tank, a torpedo or two, a naval gun, a howitzer, a Spitfire variant, a Handley Page cargo plane, a Lincoln car, a computer, a calculator, etc.

This Mark VIII tank page was moved from Mark VIII (tank) to what it is now in February 2008 but I don't feel that reversing that move is the best direction. I don't think the parentheses are necessary. Yes, there's the Mark VI (tank) page and a bunch of redirect pages ending with (tank) but there's also the Mark I tank and the Mark IX tank pages that don't have parentheses. I like the more trim look of those. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be Mark VIII Tank or Mk VIII Tank or Mk VIII tank... Likewise the Commons categories. Certainly Mark VIII (tank) seems a sub-optimal (and inaccurate) name scheme.. I believe the article should be named after what the subject was correctly called in real life. And don't forget Mark Twain. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the Mark VIII was not called "Mark VIII Tank". Of course it was a "Mark VIII tank" — but that was not its name. So the parentheses, though obviously inelegant, serve a purpose: to prevent the misunderstanding that the name was "Mark VIII Tank". The full "official" name was apparently "Tank Mark VIII" or "Heavy Tank Mark VIII" or perhaps "Tank Mk. VIII" — I've seen all three versions in the literature.--MWAK (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'm certainly inexpert in terms of tank nomenclature. I continue to propose a move of some sort, even if Mark VIII tank is not the name finally chosen. Here's a mockup of the dab page that is expected to take its place here at 'Mark VIII': Mark VIII (sandbox mockup of dab page). Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the original Mark VIII (tank) would still be the best solution?--MWAK (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support move to Tank Mk. VIII. Or something, and hopefully speedily. 70.51.11.115 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tank Mark VIII or Mark VIII tank. No need to shorten "Mark", equally avoid "." in article name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Replying to MWAK: I don't agree that the article name need line up with what the article subject was called. It's a good practice, sure, but not universally followed. For instance, not many people would have called the Sherman an M4 Sherman, yet that's our article name, probably in order to make room for a disambiguation page.

The name of the article "Light Tank Mk VIII" shortens "Mark" to "Mk". That would seem to suggest another two possibilities here: "Tank Mk VIII" or "Heavy Tank Mk VIII".

For this specific article, we've got these choices on the table:

• Tank Mark VIII
• Tank Mk VIII
• Heavy Tank Mark VIII
• Heavy Tank Mk VIII
• Mark VIII tank
• Mark VIII (tank) Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you tank editors wish to coordinate all the tank article names at this time, but if that is the wish, now would be a pretty good time, considering this proposed move.

Why not create the article under the correct official name, and have a couple of redirect pages using the names people would commonly use e.g. Page name Tank Mark I, with a redirect page Mark I tank. The whole purpose would be to assist e.g. a school history student doing a project on WWI to find whatever info they need, about an era which to them would be as remote as the Stone Age. Personally, I would search for "World War I tank" or "First World War tank" or "1916 tank" and expect to find something. The article should then give him/her enough info to understand what the item was called in its day (what did the crew itself call it in say 1918 ?) and what it did. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Of all the alternatives I'd prefer "Tank Mark VIII". It's best not to make too many redirects; letting "World War I tank" redirect to the Mark I instead of Tanks in World War I seems undesirable :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting changing existing redirects. Indeed, the article "Tanks in World War I" comes up first and is a good introduction. I was referring in general terms to a need to verify that searches for key terms do manage to come up with relevant articles. Google and Yahoo have totally failed in that area. I'm not sure how the exact article title is used by Wiki search engine.Rcbutcher (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay Tank Mark VIII will be the new article name, unless strong disagreement is presented. I suggest any less-than-strong disagreements be solved by the creation of redirect pages. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved. Now checking for orphaned links. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class is not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Metric/imperial measurements

This article quite confusedly jumps between imperial and metric measurements, sometimes using both within the same sentence. This obviously makes measurement comparisons very difficult. I would recommend converting all measurements to one format, preferably metric. Wcp07 (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Information about Indiana Jones movie

I understand some have problems with mentioning that the Mark VIII inspired the tank in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Indeed this is part of a larger uneasiness with such "trivia" information, especially when referring to the way elements from real history are represented in works of fiction, such as novels or movies. Such trivia seem to have nothing to do with the subject per se and to be merely about some irrelevant reworking of real material into, well, "junk".

However, there are good reasons to consider such junk valid content of a Wikipedia article. The reproduction of history in other realms of life is a very interesting cultural phenomenon per se — indeed it is a science in its own right. Therefore such information is by nature encyclopedic. Furthermore most readers are better acquainted with e.g. a movie than with the "real thing". Sadly, they are probably even more interested in the movie aspect. A deplorable fact perhaps, but it means we have the duty to provide the information they desire. Their interest is proven by the fact that in the past several contributors have added this information — but sadly in an incorrect form. So I created a single sentence with the real facts. Removing it will only cause errors to pop up again, here or elsewhere on Wikipedia!--MWAK (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we even confident that this was meant to be a mark VIII and not just some "generic early tank"? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it was meant to be a MK VIII at all - your guess is probably correct that the moviemakers just wanted a tank that appeared to be correct for the 1930s. (I commend then for that - the easy route would have been to borrow an M47 or something!) However, I agree it needs to be in the article. If its any consolation, I've seen the same type of content in print articles about the MK VIII. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

surviving examples

• http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=175157 Brian in denver (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)