Skyrim talk:Bandit (Dawnguard)

Separate Page?

I don't think this guy needs a separate page, especially since "Khajiit Bandit" isn't even his name. He should be integrated into the Skyrim:Bandit page. For example, look at Oblivion:Conjurer - two unique conjurers are added by plug-ins, but they are integrated into the normal table. Since the bandit page is currently rather barren, it doesn't have the ability to easily integrate this fellow; I propose making a separate section for him on the bandit page, at least until the article is brought up to par (and perhaps afterwards, depending on the style used). If no one objects, I'll mark this page for deletion and move the info to Skyrim:Bandit. —Legoless 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought that we were trying to give every unique npc that had a unique name a page. Dawnguard is unavailable to me at the moment, for obvious reasons, but if he is called khajiit bandit, he should have a page. If he is called Bandit, and is always just a khajiit he shouldn't. So I say, no he shouldn't have a page.--Br3admax 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, his name is level-dependent. —Legoless 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We should handle this as we handle all Dawnguard info then. Merge the pages, and add appropriate tags. It could say: This Bandit is always a khajiit male. This will be a redirect then, I guess.--Br3admax 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No real value as a redirect, but I don't see the harm. —Legoless 18:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(←) So, does anyone disagree with me moving it?--Br3admax 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't disagree, but at the moment the bandit page is ... lacking ... If this gets added into it then it may take up to much of the focus and look like the article is mostly about the Khajiit one. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Then we should get the stats of all the bandits then, also lets model the bandit page more like the Forsworn page.--Br3admax 19:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Eshe was working on the bandit page here but she has not been around recently, you could try emailing her tho. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this proposal. For the conjurer example you gave, those two unique conjurers are similar to the majority of other conjurers in almost every way. This isn't the case for this NPC. He does not enter combat with you, as other bandits do, and he's just as unique as all the other addicts found in Redwater Den, who all have their own pages. Instead, maybe we should move the page to "Bandit (Dawnguard)" instead of "Khajiit Bandit". ABCface^◥ 03:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

But he is just like any other bandit, that happens to always be a khajiit. He doesn't have a unique name, only stats. He doesn't need a page.--Br3admax 03:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he's not like any other bandit. Other bandits will be hostile, he won't. Your interactions and encounter with him are completely different from every other bandit in the game. ABCface^◥ 03:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(←) But does that warrant a page, we can add he is non hostile. We can not talk to him. Most of this page is just what he wears and what he lays on top of.--Br3admax 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to have a page for him. He isn't really associated with the other bandits, so there isn't a reason to throw him in there. Also, for consistency sake, he should have a page along with all other Redwater Den inhabitants. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, alright, but lets change it to what Alphabetface said.--Br3admax 03:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as AKB said, pages exist for the Addict, Nobleman, and Imperial Deserter. If they warrant an individual page, he does too. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it, I'm just not sure what the best name is, since it varies. I think "Bandit (Dawnguard)" is safest, but I'll wait and see what others think. ABCface^◥ 03:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The varying names is an issue. I wouldn't have a problem with renaming the article, but I feel that we should have redirects for all possible names (i.e., "Bandit Outlaw (Dawnguard)" etc.). They should also be listed in full on the article if we take that approach. To address ABCface's concerns with the Oblivion:Conjurer example, the Spell Tomes conjurer is certainly unique, as he stalks the player constantly until killed, yet he doesn't have a page. We also list dead creatures in the same tables as live ones, even though their behaviour is obviously different. Integrating something like this bandit into a table isn't unheard of. —Legoless 15:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the Oblivion pages, but I still think this NPC should have his own individual page, for consistency with the other skooma addicts at Redwater Den having their own. I understand the desire for consistency across namespaces, but I think consistency within a namespace is better if we can't have both. I think making redirects for the other possible names is a good idea, and should be implemented if we decide to keep this (renamed) page. ABCface^◥ 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I was just using how we handled Oblivion as an example. With Skyrim, we have a lot more separate pages than with Oblivion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. —Legoless 15:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(←) So, is the consensus to keep the page? I'm thinking yes, but want to be sure. Also, if we are keeping it, are we wanting to move the page to "Skyrim:Bandit (Dawnguard)", then create redirects for "Skyrim:Bandit Plunderer (Dawnguard)" and all other possible names? If this is what's wanted, we should probably go ahead and make the changes. ABCface^◥ 17:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If no one opposes in the next day or so, I'm going to move this page and create the redirects as mentioned above. — ABCface^◥ 10:09, 11 September 2012 (EDT)