Talk:Army

Can we please agree on these terms before we start making up such terms. I much rather use affiliation than "army." --Karlos 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that affiliation sound incredibly better than army, unfortunately, the term is not made up: User talk:Andrew McLeod/Species --Xeeron 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While Army seems to be an internal term at ANet, it dosen't appear in the game AFAIK. It would be unlikely that anyone would look for it specifically. Backsword


 * BTW, the have to be a better place to debate this. Backsword


 * That's not a very valid argument, are we also going to use "descriptors" as an attribute? The first sentence of the "Army" section says it is the Political Allegiance of a creature. No, I don't think that's a very compelling argument.--Karlos 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I don't think this should be merged. -- Gordon Ecker 02:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * how is army different from affiliation? -- VVong | BA 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal isn't to merge this article with Affiliation, it's to merge it with Creature. -- Gordon Ecker 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Move
I'm opposed to a move. Affiliation is a completely unofficial term, while army is, at best, an official term, and, at worst, semi-official. -- Gordon Ecker 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the infobox currently uses affiliation. Shouldn't we at least keep it sort of in-sync with each other? While I'm fine with either moving this to affiliation or changing the infobox to use army, I'm leaning towards the former, simply for the fact that "army" is an ArenaNet internally used term (likely in the code variable), and thus intuitively explaining what it means; whereas "affiliation" just seems to fit more naturally with what it's trying to represent. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 08:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this should be moved since we are using the affiliation mark in the npc box now. Fall 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Until the what links here are cleared, this should not be deleted. -- Wyn  talk  19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)