Lore talk:Artifacts

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive 1: Nov 2006 - May 2013

Remaining Artifacts[edit]

I've combed through all the artifact pages for the main games and their expansions, and I've added almost all the artifacts which I think are significant enough to be mentioned in Lore:Artifacts. But there are many "artifacts" which I've skipped. First and most importantly, how we've defined an artifact for the games and defining an artifact for the lore section are a little different. Having a unique in-game appearance and name doesn't necessarily make an item the kind of famous artifact which is noteworthy here (historical relevance is, I think, the main criterion for adding things to the lore section).

So I've made a list here of all the other artifacts. The ones at the top I'm most inclined to add, and my assessment of their merit roughly dwindles as you go down the list due to a variety of considerations. If an artifact is only one of several possible rewards, for example, and its appearance in a game depends on player choice, then I've been reticent to add it. Many of them have dubious or ambiguous historical significance. Some are apparently unknown on Tamriel (though that's just one, inaccurate gauge of historical significance). Some I'm worried are basically generic weaponry, even though they were unique in their respective games. Anyways, I hope you all can determine where the line should be drawn. I trust my misgivings for each will be mostly clear in context.

Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:34, 14 July 2013 (GMT)

The Dawnguard weapons, Archmages Robes and Aetherial items are pretty generic. Not worthy of any kind of artifact page, IMO. The rest mostly seem fine. —Legoless (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2013 (GMT)
Honestly, I think everything above Miraak (i.e. not miraak's things) is artifact worthy. Those items with specific links to people or groups (i.e. miraak's things, The nightingale stuff, harkon's sword, etc) can probably just be mentioned on the page's of their owners, without a full lore section to themselves. Other than that, some of the morrowind ones could possibly be combined into a single section (such as the nerevarine items) mainly because individually, they aren't noteworthy, they are only noteworthy because of what they represent when combined. Jeancey (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2013 (GMT)
I generally agree with Legoless and Jeancey on the artifacts from that list they've pointed out, but I disagree with the idea that items denoting the player character's reputation are significant in and of themselves. I also think that it has to be part of a quest, so some of the rings lying around in Dagoth Ur or on the body of someone you kill don't count. I've further expressed my thoughts in the section below on what counts as an artifact. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2013 (GMT)
Some Shivering Isles items not listed might deserve a mention, too. Shivering:Dawnfang and Duskfang, Shivering:Ruin's Edge, Shivering:Nerveshatter, Shivering:Shadowrend, and Shivering:Sword of Jyggalag. As for the items in Minor Edit's list, I'd mention the Staff of the Everscamp, the Staff of Worms, and the Ten Pace Boots. The rest I'm not sure about, they seem more like 'Somebody's Cool Sword' than like a marvelous artifact. --Gez (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2013 (GMT)

() Why is the Ring of Eidolon's Edge not mentioned on the Artifacts page when it is unique looking and of Daedric origin? Is it because it only exists in Oblivion? Because there is a bunch of rings that only exist in Morrowind and are not linked to Daedra or Aedra. 71.171.112.31 03:31, 15 November 2013 (GMT)

Apathy. Preoccupation. Negligence. The time constraints of basic survival in the modern world. Plenty of reasons, but none of them are any good, as far as I know. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 04:07, 15 November 2013 (GMT)
fix'dLegoless (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (GMT)

Defining What an Artifact Is[edit]

When Lore:Artifacts was a single page, an artifact was defined as any object of great importance that was in two or more games. Now that we've expanded to multiple pages, we've included many artifacts that are only in one game. As the discussion on Minor Edits' excellent list of missing artifacts pointed out, we aren't accepting every item in the games' artifact categories and we seem to have some de facto criteria for what counts, such as there needing to be some sort of history associated with it. I'd like to suggest that we create a formal definition for an article. Based on my own analysis, and the current description of an artifact on Lore:Artifacts, it seems to me that something is an artifact if it:

  • Has its own Lore namespace article
  • Is either a reward to or an integral part of a quest in at least one Elder Scrolls game (especially if it is in more than one)
  • Meets one or more of the following:
    • Has defined and unambiguous historical significance within the history of Tamriel (especially if it is before the Third Era)
    • Is well-known among the people of Tamriel
    • Is associated with a Daedric Prince, Aedric God, or other deity
    • Is listed in an in-game book alongside other artifacts that meet this criteria

This proposed criteria would cover just about all of our current artifacts, although some challenge the definition (e.g. Calcelmo's Stone). If you have any suggestions for refining this definition, please feel free to share. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2013 (GMT)

The point of articulating these considerations would be to determine whether or not to include an artifact in the lore namespace. Whether an item has a Lore article can't be a factor in determining whether to give an item a Lore article. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
The criteria generally encompasses all the current artifacts in the Lore section I can think of, but I can also imagine future scenarios where the game developers could include an item which dodges these factors and yet may still be worthy of inclusion in the lore section. It's also worthy noting that the great majority of artifacts from the games have now found their way into the lore section. That's why, instead of focusing on what makes a "game artifact" suitable to be a "lore artifact", it might be better to focus on what excludes a game artifact from being a lore artifact. Generic items, for example, should not be lore artifacts, and that was the chief concern with many of the as-yet unrepresented game artifacts I listed in the discussion above.
I think it's important to make it very clear up front that, like virtually everything in the lore namespace, the issue is historical significance. Legoless' overview on this page and the more curt explanation on the Lore Main Page already express this pretty clearly. I'm not opposed to elaborating further, but I don't think it's necessary to qualify an item's historical significance as "defined and unambiguous", as it seems to set a nebulous, higher bar which could unnecessarily bog down a future discussion on the merits of an item with an argument about semantics.
The most helpful guidelines we could make would address whether and when to treat things in the games as lore artifacts which were not game artifacts. The Mantella in Daggerfall, for instance, was just a quest item in-game. Calcelmo's Stone in Skyrim was just part of the environment. I don't want to see users rely on these precedents to create a bunch of pages regarding things with dubious historical significance. Things could get messy in this area. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 07:45, 21 July 2013 (GMT)
I think you're right, I'm really creating criteria for whether or not they should be included in the Lore namespace. And the description given on the main Artifacts page is a pretty clear item, although I think that some of the current artifacts challenge it. That said, could some object be in the lore namespace, but not be considered an artifact and included in this artifacts section? -Thunderforge (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (GMT)
There are a few non-artifact object pages like Lore:Varla Stone and Lore:Ebony, but I dunno where to put them. —Legoless (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2013 (GMT)
Definitely not in Artifacts. We've discussed that a bit already. Seems to me we just have to decide on a name for Lurlock's draft appendix. I'm fine with "Lore:Ore" as the name, as "ore" is a commonly used term in the games which can be loosely defined to encompass any "natural product". If we made that and something like "Lore:Intoxicants" for Lore:Skooma, we would take care of every orphan in the lore section. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:25, 24 July 2013 (GMT)
Sounds good. I was trying to assemble an alcoholic beverage list (WIP) a while back just out of curiosity. Might be good to flesh out "Lore:Intoxicants" with. —Legoless (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2013 (GMT)