Template talk:Corps of the Australian Army

This seems a bit big
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

The word 'arms'
Generally the word 'Corps' should be used instead of 'arms'?--TinTin (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Made the change now and reworded a little. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, "corps" would seem more appropriate. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this. Corps is used in the Australian Army in this context. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone disagrees I propose renaming this to something like Corps of the Australian Army. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that makes sense. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)