This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
In and about 1968, [magazine] articles seemed to be diverting from using the "dot" and by the early 1980s, the "dot" was no longer to be found in RAF designations. I mark the change as 1983 in Air International and there was no diversion from that point on.
A glossy 1998 RAF public relations brochure (titled 'RAF 98'!) designates all types without dots.
Looking at the RAF website, the RAF Museum website and the BBMF website, the dots have been eradicated even for the WWI types, which looks plain daft to me. WP:COMMONNAME overrides any project guidelines ..., so the common name or form for an article ... is the one that should be used.
... consistency within an article and with respect to the time period.
Saying, say, "Hurricane F1" instead of "Hurricane Mark I" would be terrible!
Here are the dates I have encountered when changes occurred in the RAF nomenclature: ... 2000: Dot has completely disappeared everywhere in RAF use. Now that means that earlier types were not renamed as Hurricane F1, but were simply called Hurricane Mk 1 or Hurricane 1, XII, IV, etc. everything else was already designated but the dot had completely disappeared. My thought is let's be consistent with what the RAF wants everyone to use- get rid of the dot across the board.
... the use of the "." in the abbreviated form of mark numbers (e.g. "F.6") was very much the norm (at least in the aviation press) before this time, as I recall. I think it's reasonable to suggest, for historical accuracy, we keep the "." for aircraft types that were retired before, say, 2000 (or a more accurate date if one can be found), and use the dot-less form for types in service after this date. I also prefer the abbreviated "F.6" format to the slightly cumbersome "F. Mk. 6".
... I've been supporting [two systems, one for retired aircraft and a different one for current aircraft] all along ... I think this is the most historically consistant. I'm ambivelant about using the dot with the "Mk", ....
I can't see why you'd use a full-stop to shorten "Mark". I thought the full-stop was used for when there were letters missing eg "Capt.".
Just out of interest in my notes I have a copy of an official major servicing card for a Whirlwind from 1972 (Air Publication 101C-0310-5D) which uses the format "WHIRLWIND HAR10 & HCC12" so clearly that format was in official use in the early 70s. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One swallow doesn't make a summer[1] - you could add a ref to the AP (next to "Phantom" ref), but I still think we should stick with the format used by RAFMAT and in the current Whirlwind article (where the format is presumably based on cited docs). DexDor (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just making the point that the no dot version was used in official documents as early as the 1970s, the current consensus could change in the future so this is just here for the record. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mixing manufacturer and military designations[edit]
Just a minor point to make about an otherwise excellent guideline: I would argue against combining manufacturer's and military designations together, as I think these two contexts should be kept separate. For instance, I would use either "Hawker Siddeley HS.1182 Hawk" or Hawker Siddeley Hawk T.1", but not "Hawker Siddeley HS.1182 Hawk T.1". Likewise, I wouldn't mix different military designation systems (i.e. either "F-4K Phantom II" or "Phantom FG.1" but not "F-4K Phantom FG.1"). Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The manufacturer's name is not normally combined with the military designation (e.g. not "Supermarine Spitfire Mk V"). seems a strange statement as it is the normal way to refer to such aircraft, perhaps we should remove it as it is clearly not true. MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
