Talk:List of chiefs of the general staff of the Argentine Navy

Rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Sundostund: I propose renaming this page to List of Chiefs of the Argentine Navy or List of Chiefs of the General Staff of the Argentine Navy. Your thoughts? Gbawden (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gbawden: Honestly, I prefer to keep the current name. The position changed the name several times during its existence, so keeping the (current) "neutral" name for the article seems like the best option to me. Beside, renaming here would also require us to rename lists of heads of the Argentine Army and the Argentine Air Force, for the sake of consistency. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Going to get more input on this. Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gbawden: I just saw that, in List of commanders-in-chief of the Chilean Navy, the current name of the position is used for the entire article. In Chilean case, the current name is in use since 1932, in Argentine its in use from 1983. Regarding that, I think that your proposed name "List of Chiefs of the General Staff of the Argentine Navy" may be applied (with "chiefs" instead of "Chiefs")... Of course, as I said - renaming here would also require renaming of the lists of commanders of the Army and the Air Force. --Sundostund (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I propose rewording the title of this article to something like List of Chiefs of the Argentine Navy or List of Chiefs of the General Staff of the Argentine Navy. The problem I have with the current title is that the term senior officers is a bit vague. Senior officers could also be a list of admirals, not just the Chiefs of the Navy. What say you? Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I don't buy the argument that the current title is superior because the office has changed - if the list was unwieldy enough to warrant splitting, we might need separate lists (as in the case with the lists embedded in United States Secretary of War and United States Secretary of Defense) but that's not the case here. As a procedural note, probably what you'd want to do is to use WP:RM instead of an RFC. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: there appear to basically be 4 titles: Commander-in-Chief, General Commander, Chief of the General Staff and Commander of Naval Operations. Finding a common denominator is tough in such subjective nomenclature. Perhaps "most senior" is more adequate, although given the fact that most of these are redlinks I see no problem in having them all together in such a vaguely-named list. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from potential closer. G'day all, there isn't much discussion here, so I thought I might make a suggestion. Have you considered the fact that Chief of the General Staff is the current name, and it is common practice to use the current name (see Chief of Army (Australia)), with explanation of the changing name included in the text? If you were to adopt that approach, this list could be at List of Chiefs of the General Staff of the Argentine Navy or List of Chiefs of the General Staff of the Navy (Argentina). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN, Parsecboy, Gbawden, and Sundostund: for views on the above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I can accept List of Chiefs of the General Staff of the Argentine Navy as a new name, as I already said in a different post on the talk page. --Sundostund (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, seems prudent. Text needs to be amended accordingly per Peacemaker67. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I also moved heads of the Army and the Air Force to List of Chiefs of the General Staff of the Argentine Army and List of Chiefs of the General Staff of the Argentine Air Force respectively, to match the move of this article. --Sundostund (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

On that basis, I'm closing this and the closure request. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.