Talk:Ascalon

From Guild Wars Wiki

I think "Ascalon" should refer to pre-searing Ascalon and all the info on post-searing should be in a "Ruins of Ascalon" or "Ascalon Ruins" article. That's how ANet normally refers to it officially and I think that's how we should. Moreover, I think this decision should be made quickly so we'll have less work to do later on. --Santax 12:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

That seems reasonable to me. If a player totally new to Guild Wars in pre-searing knows they are in Ascalon will do a search for 'Ascalon', they will not know necessarily they are in Pre-searing until they have gone through the searing. Vladtheemailer 12:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't find the discussion that caused your proposal to made into what it is now. But I oppose any change.

If you can actually find someone who searches for or talks about post-Searing Ascalon by using "Ruins of Ascalon", please introduce them to me. The fact that Anet refers to it officially like that, is due to (1) those articles on the website are very old (2) they are lore articles, hence "Ruins" is more dramatic than "post-Searing".

If you say, "Ascalon" to a random player, try asking them if they thought about Ascalon in post-Searing of whether they thought about the tutorial area. To me, utility is better than matching what Anet uses on old articles that they don't bother updating. Don't waste a page load just for naming when ppl are more likely to be interested in the post-Searing version than the pre-Searing.

As for new players... I think the number of new players compared to old players is very small, especially new Prophecies players (how many people would buy Prophecies instead of Nightfall these days?) As for not realising about Searing... well... the Prophecies manual talks about the Searing and the website talks about the Searing. And if the new players don't bother reading those, I think they most likely won't bother reading the wiki either. -- ab.er.rant 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well is it ok if i refer to ascalon after the searing as post-searing? Laurielegit

Hi, tip: Use ~~~~ to sign your comments.

And yes, it's "Ok" to refer to Ascalon as Post-Searing Ascalon ala GuildWiki, but the current meaning is that anything post-Searing is the default meaning, like Ascalon, Regent Valley, Fort Ranik, are all assumed post-Searing. Pre-Searing requires specific mention of "pre-Searing". -- ab.er.rant 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What map is needed ?

what kind of map you want, and where you want it on the page ? you could at least put an Image:Example.jpg where you want it, it's realy nice to revert my "edit", but you don't improve the situation only saying "it's bad". i'm fine to give a map, so tell me what you want and where. lussh 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say "it's bad"? I said a map of the region (in the edit summary), as in the entire map of the Ascalon area. — ク Eloc 貢 02:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd trival reference for Ascalon

Came across this Noritake china pattern named Ascalon. Kind of a funny triva bit I thought. 75.146.48.190 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)