Template talk:Corps of the Australian Army

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Military history Corps of the Australian Army is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia This template is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force. Military history This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

This template is taking up an awful lot of room on the articles it's been added to and the right justification means that pictures can't really be added to large chunks of articles. The trend for templates seems to be to keep them as small as possible and stick them at the bottom of the page, preferably with an option to hide them if they're big. I'd suggest that this template be edited so it looks something like Template:Aust SF (which is also a bit big, but at least goes at the bottom of pages and can be compressed) --Nick Dowling 10:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this template should be modified and the haphazard placement it has been smeared over every corps article makes them look untidy and unprofessional. at least make it a floating infobox so as to not mess up the spacing. Kommando (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Converting this to a navbox footer would be a good idea, but that's not something I'm up to doing. - BillCJ (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the word 'Corps' should be used instead of 'arms'?--TinTin (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I agree, "corps" would seem more appropriate. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with this. Corps is used in the Australian Army in this context. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless anyone disagrees I propose renaming this to something like Corps of the Australian Army. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think that makes sense. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, agree, Corps is good. I don't mind the right hand side floating infobox idea/ layout, bottom could work as well.AWHS (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made the change now and reworded a little. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]