Skyrim talk:Artifacts

Archives
Archive 1: Nov 2011 - Feb 2012
Archive 2: Mar 2012 - Sep 2012

Mask transformation

Why do I find so many outstanding bugs. I have hearthfire and dawnguard installed first of all. I have Windstad manor, And I have the main hall upstairs armor mannequin. For awhile, I placed more than one piece of armor of each body part on the same mannequin. I had at one point, Morokei and Vokun both on the same mannequin. Vokun was the mask being displayed(relevant?). After much adventuring, I come home to see not only was Morokei now displayed, but there were now TWO of them. Vokun was nowhere to be found. I believe that somehow, Vokun had transformed into Morokei. I checked the glitches page, but this had a very different process and outcome than the Armor duplication glitch. Verification? Oblivionite (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2012 (GMT)

Artifact Definition

I find this definition really hazy and unclear.

It seems as if every item in the world which there is only one of has the potential to be an artifact, only that most of these items fail this "artifact test" one way or the other.

Looking at the Unique Items page, it really isn't clear why each item is there and not here, and vice versa.

The criteria as listed are, in order of clarity:

• Only appear once in the game.

This one is easy. If there are more than one of it, it isn't unique. But that only means it doesn't fit on either page (this or the Uniques one). Don't get me wrong - it is a good, easily understandable criteria. Only one that completely fails to differentiate between the exact two pages you set out to sort between.

• Have a unique and useful enchantment.

This is really unclear. Does this mean that an unique item that just happens to have the same enchantment as regular items isn't considered unique after all? Or that it is demoted from this page to the Unique page?

And who draws the line on what is considered useful? Do you merely mean useful as opposed to harmful (cursed)? Or is there a line between weak and strong usefulness, and if so, where is this defined in detail?

• Be unique in appearance.

I'm guessing this refers to in-game graphics, yes? But does it mean a unique 3D model? Or only its "skin" (texture)? (Or does it include basic stats - the stats that aren't considered an "enchantment"?)

Will a hammer that looks just like every other hammer except it is colored yellow fit this criteria? Will a hammer of a slightly different model or make (unique to this item of course) qualify, even if it at a quick glance looks exactly the same as all other hammers?

Again, it would be very useful if the items over at the Unique Items page were noted why each one fails this "artifact test".

CapnZapp (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2012 (GMT)

The definition makes sense to me.

Only appear once in the game is pretty obvious.

Have a unique and useful enchantment means that it can't have just a generic "Fire Damage for 10pts" enchantment. I'm not entirely sure of the rationale behind useful, though.

Be unique in appearance is also pretty straightforward. If it is in any way unique (via different model, texture, or even just light shader), then it is considered unique.

Notice that stats are ignored in the consideration of what is an artifact. The developers gave artifacts similar stats to other weapons so as not to unbalance the game. I think that it would be redundant to go on the Unique Items page and list why each item fails the test, because we'd be listing our opinion on an arbitrary distinction that our site makes. If the issue of artifact status comes up for a particular item, then we discuss it on the talk page, but it doesn't make much sense to clutter up the article with information that will ultimately not benefit our readers. • JA^T 18:04, 3 November 2012 (GMT)

I think the definition makes sense as a general rule of thumb, but this is very much a case of trying to define something that's found in the game, rather than a category invented by the site. What I mean by that is that, most players KNOW an artifact when they come across one. Therefore common sense should be the deciding factor, rather than any set of rules: an item can certainly be an artifact despite not having unique graphics (Chillrend) or a unique enchantment (the Rueful Axe).

Sorry if this wasn't on your agenda, but I'll have to bring back the issue of the aptly named Rueful Axe again. =) The Rueful Axe belongs on the article, it's removal was controversial in the first place, and the last discussion ended with everyone wanting it back. If no one objects, I'll re-add it in a week. (For all the rule prudes out there: If there is no feedback after a week, you can assume that nobody has any objections to the proposed change.) Weroj (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2012 (GMT)

(←) Is it my agenda you're talking about or somebody else's, Weroj?

Anyway, what I object to is adding a completely arbitrary set of conditions that still are incredibly hard to verify/follow. It's not that the definition helps me contribute - it asks me to simply accept the list at face value.

Wouldn't it be simply better to remove the set of criterias, and leave the inclusion of the page's selection of items uncommented? The definition then becomes "it's an artifact if it's on the artifact page" which seems equally valid and much more easy to understand and accept.

I find that the current set-up of the article, with a definition that is hazy, unverifiable, and above all not justified, is more confusing than helpful.

If the selection of items on this page is consensus-based then the page should simply say so, and not invent a set of rules that might not even be strictly adhered to and in any even be very difficult to understand.

Bottom line: why is there an "artifact definition" at all? In what way does it help the reader? CapnZapp (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2012 (GMT)

The reason for defining these sorts of things are two: 1.) We can't just put all the items on one page. It would be huge and hard to search through, so we need to come up with distinctions to split up the page into manageable categories. 2.) Those categories need to be clearly defined enough that the user will know where to look for things. If the rules are too vague, then users may wonder why a given item isn't on a given page, and without seeing what the criteria are, they might not think to look elsewhere for it, or worse, assume that the info is missing and then go adding it in multiple places. Keeping the rules clearly defined makes it obvious what goes where, and having links to the other pages gives users the clues they need to find items if they are on another page. As for these specific rules - the only one that's really at all subjective is the second one about "useful" enchantments. I think this was intended to prevent unusual cases like say, Khavozian's Fang or Nettlebane from being included here. These items are unique in appearance, but only useful for specific quests. I'd say that part is a little iffy. A better way to put it would be that the item must be good enough to be useful in general, not just in a few very specific instances. This allows things like, say, Volendrung, Auriel's Bow, and Auriel's Shield from Morrowind to qualify, all of which were found unenchanted in that game, but are almost indisputably considered to be "artifacts". TheRealLurlock (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2012 (GMT)

Shouldn't there be a rule about anything given by a Daedric Lord being an artifact. I just scanned all the quest in previous games and Skyrim given by Daedra and they never give anything out that isn't considered an artifact which justifies the Ruefull Axe's presence in the list. As CapnZapp said everybody is clear on what an artifact is through common sense, which is why all Dragon Priest masks remain together on the artifacts page, so shouldnt there be a rule that applies to other items of similiar situations (being that the Rueful Axe the only thing given as a reward by a Daedra that is not included on the page). --78.148.127.68 03:12, 17 November 2012 (GMT)

Sheogorath gives you a set of nice clothes in his Skyrim quest - I'd hardly call those artifacts, since they're generic and can be found all over the place. There are also numerous items given by Daedra in the course of their quests which don't really qualify. (E.g. Meridia's Beacon, etc.) Okay, so maybe you limit it to non-generic items which can be useful outside of a quest. That still leaves the question of the Fork of Horripilation, which appears in both Morrowind and Shivering Isles associated with Sheogorath. You can keep it in both cases, and even use it as a weapon, albeit a fairly ineffective one. I for one wouldn't have a problem with including the Rueful Axe. Mind you, this even fails your "given-by-a-Daedra" criteria, as the axe isn't explicitly given to you by Clavicus Vile, you have to find it yourself, which is actually true of many of the artifacts. And of course there's quite a number of artifacts with no Daedric association whatsoever, such as the aforementioned Dragon Priest masks and others. So that criterion alone isn't quite sufficient. TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2012 (GMT)

Obviously I don't mean generic items, but rather I meant the reward given for serving that Daedra. Also I didn't mean for it to apply to ALL artifacts but as an unwritten rule to see that items given as a reward are in fact placed on the Artifacts list. Regarding the Ruefull Axe, it was given its power by a Daedra to another person and as a reward for killing the dog, he would let you keep it, therefore actually letting the un-written rule apply. This would make the "what is an artifact?" debate die down a little. --SamGhadiali (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2012 (GMT)

(←) @TheRealLurlock: The problem is that the definition is confusing, vague, and can't be verified. It creates a problem where I am not sure one existed. Common sense and consensus seems, to me, to be much much more useful and understandable criteria. I am arguing a common user simply can't understand why item X qualifies but item Y doesn't (I know I can't), which means the definition hinders more than it helps.

I'm thinking the definition would be infinitely more appropriate as some kind of behind-the-scenes agreement (a policy? part of the style guide?) rather than something presented as normal text. Perhaps it could be added as an edit comment to guide new users? Perhaps there could be an info box informing users that UESP have reached a consensus on which items to include? As it is, the way the definition is given in normal text means the normal user expects to be able to take it in and use it fairly easy. At least in my case, that was far from the case.

That's step one. The next step is that the fact remains; the definition remains so... unverifiable... I can't make heads or tails of it (as detailed above). Unless y'all are ready to dismiss me as of below-average mental faculties this should be a problem to you too... :-)

CapnZapp (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2012 (GMT)

"I think this was intended to prevent unusual cases" - this conveys a me to be very unwikilike train of thought. Wiki pages aren't governed by absolute rules all editors must obey. You don't "prevent" (preempt?) people's contributions. Instead, consensus is reached post-edit. That means you can and should remove somebody's inappropriate inclusion without referring to some high and mighty rule; instead trusting that your action is supported by the community. (Besides, even if all editors were to read and adhere to such a rule, this definition fails anyway since it is so vague and hard to understand.) Also see my previous comment. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2012 (GMT)

Dragonborn items

What weapons/armor should we add to this article from the new DLC? i'm not sure entirely which ones qualify and which ones don't — Unsigned comment by JCsquared (talk • contribs) at 20:32 on 8 December 2012‎

None should be added here. We will set up a Dragonborn:Artifacts page in the near future. ~ Psylocke 03:04, 9 December 2012 (GMT)

ok, should we move the artifacts from dawnguard to their own page too?JCsquared (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2012 (GMT)

No. The difference is that Dragonborn has its own namespace, while Dawnguard is part of the Skyrim namespace. A link should be made from this SR:Artifacts page to the DB one when it is made. — ABCface^◥ 08:12, 9 December 2012 (GMT)

Since this is the case, I went ahead and removed the Dragon Priest Masks from the Dragonborn DLC that were added to the page by 94.13.97.173.  Airos  ( Talk  Contribs  Email ) 03:54, 18 December 2012 (GMT)

Hang on, that makes no sense, why is there a namespace for DB but not DG? Sorry if this has been covered somewhere else before but it just makes no sense to me.121.215.68.23 19:11, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

It is a long story, but basically, Dragonborn adds a significant new landmass and upwards of 90% of the new quests and other content added is on that new landmass, whereas Dawnguard content is extremely integrated with existing skyrim landmass and content. Jeancey (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

Like Jeancey said, it's mainly an issue of how much content is added by each plugin. It's like if there were a separate namespace for the Mehrunes' Razor DLC for Oblivion; it's just easier to keep it within the larger namespace unless there's a significant amount of new content added, like with Shivering Isles. ThuumofReason (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

So then if you kind people could point me in the direction of DB/DG Artifacts, that would be most appreciated. EDIT: Found DG but not DB derp :) 121.215.68.23 19:28, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

At present, the closest we have would be Dragonborn:Unique Items. ThuumofReason (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) We don't have an artifacts page yet. You could make one. Currently they would be listed here. Jeancey (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2013 (GMT)