Skyrim talk:Dayspring Canyon People

Merger

Fully believe the Dayspring Canyon people should be added to this list, and the page for Skyrim:Dayspring Canyon People be deleted. The canyon is more or less an extension of the Fort, and should be included for a similar reason that Mills, Farms, Stables, and Mines near a city or town are included as part of that town's people (i.e. Skyrim:Pelagia Farm on Skyrim:Whiterun People). LoveWaffle (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2012 (GMT)

Yes, you're correct about one thing: most minor settlements near cities are included as part of the city, and hence the residents of these minor settlements are included in the city's people. But that's exactly what these are: minor. This isn't the case for the canyon, as Fort Dawnguard lies within the canyon (and so does Mossy Glen Cave), and not the other way around, and the canyon's "interior cell" is quite large. Also, like most other DG articles such as the Forgotten Vale, this article is underdeveloped and still a stub. And just to add on some more, Dayspring Canyon is a worldspace. So, all in all, I strongly oppose the merge. ~ Psylocke 14:51, 12 November 2012 (GMT)

I'm also opposed to this merge, for the reasons Psylocke mentioned. NPCs such as the refugees who Isran won't allow inside the fort don't belong on list of people for the fort page. Both location pages link to one another, so users looking for information on the other location can easily find it by going to the other page. — ABCface^◥ 15:06, 12 November 2012 (GMT)

1) The two areas are inherently attached to each other. 2) The interior cell is large but the only characters within the area are in the refugee camp right outside the fort. 3) A number of characters within Fort Dawnguard can regularly be found within the canyon without any prodding from the user (and, if I remember correctly, the Dawnguard-affiliated characters regularly outside the Fort sleep inside it, although I cannot verify this with 100% accuracy). 4) The number of characters listed in the farms, mills, etc. outside a city is greater than the number of people outside the Fort, so the fact that those locations are minor does not hold up. 5) If the fact that the Fort is within the Canyon is an issue, than the fort should be merged with this article instead of the other way around. The only reason I set the propose merging this with Fort Dawnguard is because that location has more people in it. LoveWaffle (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (GMT)

Specifically talking to Alphabetface, why should the people in Dayspring Canyon and Fort Dawnguard be represented on different lists when the people in Sovngarde and the Hall of Valor are represented on one list, a move you specifically told me was alright here? LoveWaffle (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (GMT)

On ABC's defence, from what I read on the talk page you mentioned, she simply advised you to copy/paste the contents under "NPCs Living Here" into "Sovngarge People" and did not specifically say to include people in Sovngarde and the Hall of Valor together. And thanks for bringing this up; I believe it should be split.

And to counter your points above: 1) Just because two separate cells are connected by a door doesn't mean they should be paired with each other. 2) You admitted that the canyon is large, and ABC mentioned that these NPCs (even though near the fort) are not part of Fort Dawnguard, and are never allowed in Fort Dawnguard by the Dawnguard. 3) These Dawnguard members' parent cell is Fort Dawnguard, and hence are listed under the Fort Dawnguard page, as they are part of that faction and belong in the fort. They walk outside the fort because of their NPC packages which gives them their scripted schedule. 4) Back to the farms, mills etc again, on the grounds that you're coming from, Fort Dawnguard isn't a city; it is simply an interior cell located in a worldspace, similar to Shor's Hall and Sovngarde. 5) I do not see any usefulness in merging Fort Dawnguard people into the canyon people (in other words, the Dawnguard members should remain on their own page).

If consensus is reached, I'll be splitting the Sovngarde people page as well. Also, you can see that the residents section of Skyrim:Hall of Valor is empty, which shouldn't be the case. ~ Psylocke 02:39, 13 November 2012 (GMT)

(←) It stands to reason that "copy/paste what's currently in the NPCs Living Here section onto the new page" means "copy/paste what's currently in the NPCs Living Here section onto the new page", which includes the Hall of Valor and Sovngarde, but splitting it is a discussion for elsewhere. And, if you want to do that, you should probably remove Arch-Curate Vyrthur from Skyrim:Forgotten Vale People since he is inside the Chantry of Auri-El, which is a zone within the Forgotten Vale, similar to the relationship Fort Dawnguard has with Dayspring Canyon and the Hall of Valor has with Sovngarde. And you could probably separate the Gloombound Mine characters from Skyrim:Narzulbur People while you're at it since you have to leave the stronghold to get there and they don't even share a map marker. We could probably separate out the Red Wave from Solitude's page, any reference to Kolskeggr Mine from Markarth's page, and perhaps the Dark Brotherhood Sanctuaries from Falkreath's and Dawnstar's pages.

Furthermore, you're still missing my point about the characters. Many of the Dawnguard members within Fort Dawnguard (and listed in Skyrim:Fort Dawnguard People) can regularly be found outside the fort and in the canyon. In fact, Agmaer, Durak, and Celann initially appear outside the fort and don't move in until you've reached a certain point in the Dawnguard questline. If the Dayspring Canyon and Fort Dawnguard people are not included in one table, then what reason is there not to list them here? (On that, would you even object to them being there?)

In addition, I don't find the argument that they shouldn't be listed together simply because you can't find the people listed under "Dayspring Canyon People" inside the fort all that convincing. Every character in the game only goes to a very small number of locations because of the way their schedule works. You have just as good a chance of finding Alvide inside Fort Dawnguard as you would find Sayma in Vittoria Vici's House, Jarl Korir in the College of Winterhold, or Iddra in Steamscorch Mine, yet, making the argument that the Solitude, Winterhold, or Kynesgrove pages should be fixed because of that is ludicrous. Why should the same rules used for Solitude be used on Kynesgrove and Winterhold (which, if you remove the College from the latter, both have a smaller population than Fort Dawnguard) when Fort Dawnguard is not?

Actually, going by the argument I'm seeing against the merger, we probably should split the College from the rest of Winterhold. Except for having the word "Winterhold" in the title, the two areas have about as much in common as Solitude and Windhelm, and you won't see anyone going between them. And the "Minor Locations" argument that keeps Pelagia farm in the table for Whiterun People wouldn't hold up here since there's more people in the College than there are in Winterhold proper.

And as a final note, to cite a precedent that's stood for an incredibly long time, Andre Maul, Khargol gro-Boguk and Sorkvild the Raven have been considered citizens of Dagon Fel, despite having as much if not less to do with that location as the Fort Dawnguard and Dayspring Canyon people have to do with each other, since 2007. But if the distinction has to do with a worldspace, than the oldest precendent here may actually be that Skyrim:Forgotten Vale People page, which was created in the first place by Alphabetface

LoveWaffle (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2012 (GMT)

I still don't think these should be merged. As Psylocke pointed out, I suggested copy/pasting the formatting from the NPCs section on the Sovngarde place page, which was already in place. I should have checked the Hall of Valor place page, but I didn't. If I had, I would have noticed the absence of the NPCs section on that page- which should be addressed.

In any case, I've been thinking about the various pages involved in this discussion, and I have an alternative solution. All five pages in question (Fort Dawnguard, Dayspring Canyon, Sovngarde, the Hall of Valor and Skyrim:People) may be better off with no transclusions being used, and instead have manual tables added.

For the first four pages, the 'NPCs Living Here' sections would be entirely separate (only listing those NPCs which are actually found there) because those articles are about the specific places in question, not about the NPCs living there. This keeps the information accurate and to the point- only those NPCs live there, and the article is not being compromised just to keep NPC information together when it's not even about them.

The People page, however, is simply a listing of named NPCs in the game. It's organized by location for simplicity, so while their location is still useful information, the distinction between these separate locations isn't as important there. So the tables of NPCs for those locations would be combined on that page (the Sovngarde People as they are now, and the Dayspring/Fort people similar to what LW did here).

If we go this route, the Fort Dawnguard People, Dayspring Canyon People, and Sovngarde People pages can be marked for deletion, since the transclusions won't be needed (as each page in question would use manual formatting instead).

So how does this sound as a compromise? — ABCface^◥ 19:25, 13 November 2012 (GMT)

I could agree with that. However, if we strike those transclusions, then there's probably a few others that should probably taken down as well (High Hrothgar, Sky Haven Temple, etc.) But that's a discussion for elsewhere. LoveWaffle (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2012 (GMT)