IMCDb Forum
Naming conventions » Adding a "Mark" field?
Category:  
« Previous topic
Poll: Add a "Mark" field? (Votes: 8)
Yes, as a simple text field: 12% (1)
Yes, as a number with a formatting that depend on the make: 75% (6)
No, better to keep it in model name: 12% (1)
No, and we should move these info as extra info: 0% (0)
Reminder of the previous message
Direct link to this message Edit  Quote  Add this message as quote for multiple quotes  Delete  Top  Bottom
Adding a "Mark" field?
Published 21/03/2006 @ 00:05:30, By DAF555
I think it would be better to put them back there, even if they are somewhat like the Mk:s, especially since we have the earlier P and P2 models that won´t fit in the Mk system.

As for the name order I think it would be better if the Mk field was sorted beneath the make and model field if possible. Maybe even the chassisfield could be sorted there. To keep the official name clean from workshop designations and selfmade numbers.
Like this:
1964 Opel Rekord L
[A]
1968 Mercedes-Benz 200
[W115]
1975 Ford Capri II
Mk2
1975 Volkswagen Golf L
[Typ 17] 1

Some models have the Mk in the name, and in those cases it shold be in the modelfield or extra info, since it´s the official designation.
Like the Triumph 2000 Mk2, but the 2000 Mk1 isn´t badged that way and I think it ws dropped again on the later 2000 TC model. It was still a Mk2 though, of course, even if the label came off.

The european Fords are also problematic since they are produced in both britain and germany. It´s ok for the british cars to have a Mk number, but for other markets it feels more strange since they are rarely (I think) referred to in that way outside the UK. Maybe it´s better to use a simple number like the VW for them?



Direct link to this message Edit  Quote  Add this message as quote for multiple quotes  Delete  Top  Bottom
Adding a "Mark" field?
Published 21/03/2006 @ 00:18:05, By antp
I was discuting about that today with Sixcyl.
The chassis code being between [ ], it is not mixed with the model name, so I guess it is not a problem. For the mk, I do not really know yet how I'll do.
Putting the info on a separate line looks strange, I am not sure it is the best solution :ohwell:
By the way, if somebody has an idea on how we could put these various info on the page in a clean way...
A solution would be a list
Make: ...
Model: ...
Year: ...
etc.
on the left of the picture for example. But it would maybe not look very good :ohwell:

I'll change Opel back to chassis code then.

Latest Edition: 21/03/2006 @ 00:22:55
Direct link to this message Edit  Quote  Add this message as quote for multiple quotes  Delete  Top  Bottom
Adding a "Mark" field?
Published 21/03/2006 @ 12:00:58, By Bebert
Petite remarque concernant le vocabulaire: ne pourrait-on pas changer le mot "phase", aux connotations un peu trop médiacales à mon goût, par "version" ?
Direct link to this message Edit  Quote  Add this message as quote for multiple quotes  Delete  Top  Bottom
Adding a "Mark" field?
Published 21/03/2006 @ 13:48:33, By antp
Pour les voitures récentes (années 80 et +) on parle souvent de "phase" pourtant. Pour les plus anciennes, on pourrait mettre "version" ou "série"...
Direct link to this message Edit  Quote  Add this message as quote for multiple quotes  Delete  Top  Bottom
Adding a "Mark" field?
Published 17/06/2007 @ 17:10:48, By Ddey65
Speaking of "Marks," this particular car is a Lincoln Continental Mark IV, but you misidentified it as a "Series IV."

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=109958

Just thought you'd like to know.

Direct link to this message Edit  Quote  Add this message as quote for multiple quotes  Delete  Top  Bottom
Adding a "Mark" field?
Published 17/06/2007 @ 20:07:22, By antp
Indeed, for these the "mk" field is not used, as that "Mark" was really part of the name.
Add Reply - Category:  
Sign In :: Sign Up :: Lost your login or your password?
KelCommunity.be :: © 2004-2024 Akretio SPRL :: Powered by Kelare