Template talk:Chief of the Army Staff (India)

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

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia 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. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force India This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Requested move 25 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 ^talk 17:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Template:Chief of the Army Staff India → Template:Chief of the Army Staff (India) – As per WP:MILMOS and WP:PRECISION, while specifying a particular name of a place in the article's name to avoid confusion/disambiguation, it must be put in the brackets but must not be directly suffixed as it is now. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving templates is a largely pointless practice that benefits no one because they are editor-facing and thus do not need to be titled according to things like our MoS. Jenks24 (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jenks24: Wikipedia:Template namespace#Template names may be a reason to move. Though I'd add that if this template had many thousand transclusions, a template move might be unnecessary server strain. But then again, TPROT level templates have been moved to more English-conformant and readable names over the years, including those with close to millions of transclusions. (This one has only 29). I say, move, but don't feel strongly either way. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that other people feel differently to me about this issue, it's only my personal opinion and that's why I didn't oppose. I think in cases like this, where the template is readily identifiable at either title, starting a RM is a waste of admin/page mover time and I will continue to discourage the practice. Jenks24 (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral – @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Like Jenks24 I don't see the benefit of making minor changes to template titles. However the target name is free so you can move the template yourself if you wish. — JFG ^talk 09:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.