Talk:The Mausoleum

I always wondered what rotscale was guarding, he has been around since beta and has always been one of those cool enimies that you find in proph. Proph is my favorite campign because there are so many unexplained landmarks like the tower in kessex peak and the mausoleum/rotscales island. I think its really cool that ANet opened this area and I hope they keep it open. FighterXiii 01:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC) FighterXiii
 * I hope they keep it open too! I always wished it was functional Nay the One and Only User Nay_the_One_and_Only_SIG.jpg 06:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that once Halloween ends, with all the new quests, the King will remain in our world and this will be his new home.Lokheit 14:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Compass only shows foes
Does it mean the compass is otherwise all black like the mission map? Because in my case the compass seemed to be fine. - J.P. Talk  10:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For me the compass only showed a wall. So i saw my group and every enemy walking around inside a solid wall on the compass DemonicFahrirDesecrate_Enchantments.jpg 11:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The anomaly note is incorrect. The compass shows everything the way it does anywhere else, EXCEPT for the actual map. Which means that team members, heroes and NPC's (the elegant sarcophagus') ARE shown on the compass. I'll edit the note accordingly. --Manassas  [[File: User Manassas Mannysig.png]] 12:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Is the plural for sarcophagus not "Sarcophagi?" o_o ) -- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 13:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No clue ... I rarely use it myself. --Manassas  [[File: User Manassas Mannysig.png]] 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes @ Neil. --Ravencroft0 10:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neil using proper spelling? What happened to this wiki!?!?! RazoR 39999 13:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Depths of Tyria?
Is it really, mechanically, part of the Depths of Tyria? Or does it just use the loading screen? -- Konig / talk 23:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pro (Depths): it has locked chests with same chance to open as eotn; drops salvageable mods on off-hands; depths loading screen; drops spears/scythes
 * Con (e.g. closer to Sorrow's Furn): drops inherent mods (not inscribables); enter from proph area


 * I think it's closer to Depths than anything else, but we're making an arbitrary distinction to fit it into our categories. We did the same thing by classifying WiK zones as Prophecies, since that, too is a better fit than anything else (even though the professions and skills are non-Proph, the drops and portals are Proph). So, I support classifying this as depths (pending more data from ANet) unless we want to create a Guild Wars Beyond classification to fit all the new areas that don't fit into anything else. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, its not Guild Wars Beyond either, for the sake of argument :P &mdash;  Skakid  02:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Joking aside, the point is that we don't have a perfect fit unless we create a catch-all classification. I don't really think it matters what we call it, should we decide to go that route. I also think it's acceptable to force-fit this zone into an existing category, just as long as we acknowledge that it's not going to match 100%. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So... it's basically an Eye of the North area that doesn't require Eye of the North. Can you say "wtf?" I'd say that Beyond would be better classification because GW:B requires the four games prior but it isn't part of that campaign - story or timeline wise, that is. But eh... -- Konig / talk 02:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (indent reset) Nicholas, the Zaishen Quests and the Zaishen Menagerie are also part of GW:B, so technically "Beyond" doesn't mean you require all campaigns. There are a lot of areas that are not part of any campaign at all, mainly some of the festival disguise battles arenas, and prior to their inclusion in GW:EN some of the dungeons (namely Wintersday's one from memory).
 * War in Kryta got its location-based category for instance (Category:War_in_Kryta_locations), and if there isn't one already, festivals should get one as well by now, no need to get too specific with a special Halloween one after all. :) -- Leonim 00:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhm, I never said all... but you need to own the campaigns (and finish them) for GW:B content (thus far, it's only requiring Prophecies and Eye of the North though - for WiK - Canthan content will require Factions, obviously). Also, Nicholas and the Zaishen stuff were never stated to be part of GW:B - nor has Dhuum, the new Halloween stuff, or M.O.X. -- Konig / talk 01:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The point is: no specific category currently exists that fits the mausoleum. (Let's not digress too far about what GWB means or doesn't mean.) Category:Festival locations could cover the Mausoleum, perhaps the special UW instances, and others. I expect that we will still find explorable areas or mission instances that don't fit in an existing category, so I would also be happy with Category:Special locations (or any suitable title that holds whatever we cannot fit elsewhere). We can add other categories should the catch-all end up with too many entries. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You people like to have everything in its proper shoe box don't ya? Ambiguity is good for ya, try it! :P RazoR 39999 14:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would disagree RazoR. I've seen several people who were ambiguous and I would never try to hook up with them at a bar simply for the 50% chance that I guess wrong... Anyways, Guild Wars Beyond has only 3 elements so far: War in Kryta, Gwen and Thackeray, and Trial of Zinn. Everything else you listed and everything else you didn't list that has been released after EotN is NOT part of GW:B. GW:B is defined as "an ongoing campaign that expands upon the Guild Wars storyline by focusing on key characters and historical events that shape the world in the years leading up to Guild Wars 2." At this point, the Mausoleum does not meet that criteria, though it seems like it might be utilized to that end before long, at least to me. John did say that there will be more Mad King Thorn content coming, but who knows if that will be GW:B or just extra fun. --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 10:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider, I love killing Rotscale, But how many people are going to start QQ about the fact that he is there at the entrance to the mausoleum? I heard a guy complaining about how hard it is to beat rotscale (It isn't) and how he could not do that specific quest because Rotscale is too hard. I am ALL for more use of stuff like the Mausoleum(especially with foe's like Rotscale guarding the door - I think it makes whatever area it is more fun and realistic who wouldn't enter a dragon guarded dungeon? Rogueonion 16:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Should it be noted?
That the Mausoleum was in fact the same dungeon that is from the main quest to enter EoTN? It is. You start to the right of where you originally meet vekk and ogden. Rogueonion 05:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC) . None of these areas are dungeons, either. Manifold  05:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The last trivia note is "This area is similar to parts of Beneath Lion's Arch, Caverns Below Kamadan, and Tunnels Below Cantha."
 * Oh my mistake thanks. Rogueonion 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn
Well I didn't have high hopes, but as I missed the Halloween event due to crappy internet here in Afghanistan and didn't get to see this area, I went ahead and left today and headed out for Magesty's Rest h/h to see if you could just run around this area for fun (blah Rotscale sucks h/h). But I guess you have to have the quest to see this area...it's what I figured, but wanted to see anyway. (Usaf1a8xx 08:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

If you want to quote something, use quotes; "Enter the Mausoleum" is not a title, so doesn't need italics either)

 * regarding this edit

Enter the Mausoleum is the name of something that we want to distinguish from the rest of the sentence; it's not being quoted. Similarly, yes is the answer to a question that we want to highlight; it's arguably a quote, but (in context of the sentence), it's italicized to set it apart from the rest of the sentence.

Using quotation marks alone to offset text, whether a title or something else, was a limitation of the typewriter. On the PC, we have more options. And, on this wiki, we tend to use links, quote marks + italics, italics, and rarely stick with quotation marks. It's a stylistic choice more so than a grammar choice &mdash; I believe that italics look better and read easier than "straight quotes." — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 15:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are established conventions that govern when you use italics, underline, boldface, and other formats. While this wiki doesn't have a set manual of style, others do; here is the canonical example. I don't see anything there that would justify use of italics in this context. The sentence in question is short enough that nothing risks being lost in the clutter, hence there is no need to emphasise anything. You certainly don't need to use italics twice in one line. -- Hong 15:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)