Skyrim talk:Artifacts

Archives
Dragonborn Archive
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 Skyrim: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)

We have one now: Skyrim:Artifacts. --Xyzzy ^Talk 01:56, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

Rune Axe?

Why is the Dawnguard Rune Axe on here? it doesn't fit the page's definition of an artifact. It looks identical to the normal Dawnguard axe. — Unsigned comment by 66.30.21.53 (talk) at 21:47 on 20 August 2013

By the strict definition of an "artifact", you're correct. My feeling is that it should remain on the page, though. It has a very unique enchantment. --Xyzzy ^Talk 02:26, 21 August 2013 (GMT)

I have to disagree. There are only three criteria for 'Artifact', and this breaks one of them (perhaps the biggest one). It belongs on the 'Unique Items' pages. A "very unique enchantment" doesn't exempt it to my eyes, not when, on that page, there are enchantments which blot out the sun! — Unsigned comment by 66.30.21.53 (talk) at 02:52 on 22 August 2013 (GMT)

It is allowed it due to its sister artifacts that do belong here, the Rune Hammer and Shield, meeting the needed qualifications. This has been discussed before, about the Dragon Priest Masks where a few did not meet the standards, but were allowed in due to the fact that it would separate them from the rest of the collection. It's a very complicated rule that has rarely come up, but it the current precedent that allows the Rune Axe here. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:09, 22 August 2013 (GMT)

But the Hammer is the same as the axe, no? It's the same as a normal Dawnguard hammer, bar its enchantment. Maybe it and the axe do fit, but the one can't be an argument for the other. — Unsigned comment by 66.30.21.53 (talk) at 03:53 on 22 August 2013

Yes I can argue that the inclusion of one allows for the inclusion of others. I just explained how it has been established as acceptable to allow for a group of items to allow other items that do not necessarily meet the standards in. While it is pushing it since there are arguments against two of the three, the fact that the game treats it as an artifact, reasoning used in support of the inclusion of the Rueful Axe in similar circumstances, tips it more in favor of their inclusion here. I do not want to split up the set. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:15, 22 August 2013 (GMT)

(←) You *could* argue the inclusion of one allows for the inclusion of others, if you had one that was included. You don't. The shield does have a unique appearance. It stands on its own merits, thus it can't be used as an argument for why items without unique appearance belong. I'm not sure what "the game treats it as an artifact" means. They aren't daedric artifacts, which is the only in-universe distinction of 'artifact' I know of. 'Artifact' here is an external, wiki-specific distinction that's being made for the sake of organization. — Unsigned comment by 66.30.21.53 (talk) at 04:48 on 22 August 2013

The quest where you get these items is called Lost Relic. 'Relic' is a synonym for 'artifact'. That is reasonable evidence that the game considers them to be artifacts. Secondly, at least one of the items absolutely meets our definition. As for your claim that: "The shield does have a unique appearance. It stands on its own merits, thus it can't be used as an argument for why items without unique appearance belong." I must simply ask you to look at this page again. You may notice The Rueful Axe is included, despite it lacking a unique enchantment. It does not meet the qualifications to be here, but is included anyway. This is due to its relationship with the Masque of Clavicus Vile, as it serves as an alternative reward. The same is true for Rahgot.

The simple point is that the rules have been allowed to be bent before, with logical reasoning. The reasoning here is sound, they are treated as artifacts, it would break up the set, and they all but meet the qualifications. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 05:25, 22 August 2013 (GMT)

Blade of Woe

Why is the blade of Woe in the unique items and not the artifacts? — Unsigned comment by 79.129.21.61 (talk) at 17:25 on 24 August 2013‎

Its enchantment, "Absorb 10 points of health" is not unique, and therefore it doesn't meet the definition for the page. — ABCface^◥ 17:38, 24 August 2013 (GMT)

Well then if what you said is true, then should Keening be removed? Aside from the "Mortal Wound" effect, the enchantment isn't that unique as there are ways to get three effects onto an item.--Dotto88 (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2013 (GMT)

I think the reasoning used to call Keening's enchantment "unique" is the fact that there are three different useful effects. What "ways to get three effects" are you referring to? --Xyzzy ^Talk 01:35, 11 October 2013 (GMT)

It's possible to use this to enchant an item and if you have the perk that allows two enchantments then you can add something else alongside it. It's still technically two enchantments but three completely different effects can be added. I'm fine with Keening staying due to it's historical importance in Morrowind, but I agree that The Blade of Woe should be added if Keening is on here.--Dotto88 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2013 (GMT)

The Black Star

I'd like to open a small discussion regarding the description of the Black Star on this page of artifacts. The text on this page reads:

"The Black Star also has one clear advantage over Azura's Star: it can capture both black and white souls, unlike Azura's Star, which can only capture white souls."

According to the wiki page for the Black Star, it was never deduced whether its function was meant to capture both black and white souls, or if it was an accident/stated incorrectly by Nelacar. Either way, this Artifacts page lists the ability to capture Black and White souls without any mention of that. Also, if the "unofficial fix" for the Black Star prevents it from capturing both soul types, then this summary of it on the Artifacts page is incorrect.

Hopefully I'm not crazy and someone else sees a discrepancy in our presented data between the two pages.. — Unsigned comment by Scozz (talk • contribs) at 08:10 on 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The line is 100% correct, it can capture both black and white souls. This being true gives it a huge advantage over the white star, whether it was meant to or not, a debate that is still ongoing. The USKP patch fix has no effect on whether or not the information should be included here, as it is unofficial and not everyone has it or even wants it. The discrepancy only appears if you presume that this wiki is written after the USKP is applied to the game and assumes everyone has it installed. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Swords

Should the Pale Blade be added? Its color appears to be lighter than most Ancient Nord swords, but darker than Nord Hero swords. Similarly, is Dragonbane really an artifact? Isn't it just a Blades sword, like Bolar's Oathblade? — Unsigned comment by MidbossVyers (talk • contribs) at 12:49 on 24 January 2018

The colour is due to the enchantment, anything with a frost enchantment will have a blue tint. Besides that it fails both other rules. In a similar manner, I believe Dragonbane's visual enchantment effect is unique, thereby satisfying all three requirements for entry. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 14:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It fails the other rule about being unique? In other words, there's more than one to be found per playthrough? Dragonbane's visual effect is from the enchantment, not the item itself, right? For example, the tentacles on Miraak's Sword, when its enchantment has run out, will no longer move around. Does Dragonbane still have its visual effects when it no longer has any charge? MidbossVyers (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it is of course unique in that there is only one, not sure what I was thinking of. I don't know, but if you are asking in reference to it being the unique point, then that rule applies when it is fully charged/brand new. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Should Creation Club artifacts should have their page?

I know I'm not an actual member so forgive my boldness, but since the Dragonborn artifacts have their own page, I think those added by the Creation Club should also be moved to a page of their own. I know Skyrim has been out for over eight years now, but there's still the slim chance it might confuse newer players to see them listed with base game/Dawnguard artifacts, and it could also make it easier for veteran players wanting a quick rundown of these items to see which are worth their money. Just a thought. --220.233.107.5 16:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Dragonborn items are separate because it is a different namespace. Creations and Dawnguard are included because they are documented in Skyrim's namespace. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 11:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks anyway. --220.233.107.5 14:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like CC contents to be separated from others in the same page.

I was quite confused when I viewed this page. I think CC contents should be under its own header. --Lywzc (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2020 (GMT)

I quite agree. If no one else has an opinion, I might do that some day.Blowthemandown (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering that it is locked behind a paywall which the average person will not get or own it all, and it can be absurdly expensive, I agree in separating it, but as long as they remain in the same page.Zebendal (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, some people before rejected it since "It is also part of the game, same as DG and DB" which I found really absurd. How many people still play this game without all 3 expansions and how many will buy CC contents? Lywzc (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am absolutely opposed to separating the contents out. We just finished the Dragonborn Merge Project aimed at reducing arbitrary separation of Skyrim content. All CC content is clearly marked with {{CC}} or {{Mod Header}} templates, as is all other DLC content and all platform-specific information.

Lywzc, if you are confused about this, I would suggest looking out for the ^CC superscript or the icon, the latter of which is located next to every CC-specific item on this page.

Zebendal, sorry, but the price point hardly matters in terms of our coverage. Yes, Creation Club is expensive. So is ESO. So is a Nokia N-Gage these days. The cost of playing official content is of no relevance to our documentation. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, cost/affordability isn't really how or why we separate things. It's all added to the same worldspace/APK, and it should be marked as being from CC. That should be enough. If it isn't tagged with the mod header/inline CC tag, then it should be. Otherwise, there's nothing really to do here. Jeancey (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Which is very hard to spot on a wider screen being on the right end of the screen. At least make it an superscript at the header. And BTW, ESO do separate DLC and chapters from the main game on the same page and they clearly stated from which DLC/Chapter in the first sentence on individual page. Lywzc (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(←) Actually, ESO doesn't, not for articles like this: Online:Artifacts, Online:Mythic Items. All the items are on the same list, and have markers for which DLC. The separate pages exist for CC all the DLC for skyrim too: Skyrim:Aetherial Staff and Skyrim:Boots of the Crusader for example. Jeancey (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Lywzc has a very valid point that they didn't notice the CC icon on the right. Admittedly, it easily overlooked for non-regulars. I agree that content should all stay on the same page, but there definitely should be some sort of clearer identifier that this entry is CC and that one isn't. Icons are not an accessible approach if used solely to convey that info, so ideally it should have something supporting it. Something like Blackwater Blade is an artifact added by the Creation Club. etc". --Jimeee (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

For Online:Quests, Online:Unique Items, they do. and even for Online:Mythic Items, it is labeled right next to the header, not on the far right of the screen. And I think to place the DLC/Chapter icon on the right edge like Online:Death Dealer's Fete is really confusing. Why not put it on the top left before the "Online" where it can be seen at the first glance? Lywzc (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

For Death Dealer's Fete, it cant be placed at the very top as that's the page name and we cant edit it in that way. Mythic Items could be better - the icons are way too small. I agree with your other point because its an obscure DLC icon that can only be understood by non-regulars by hovering over it or clicking on it. The answer is we simply have not come up with a way to address the issue of relying on icons to convey information. We do have some "band-aid" solutions here or there, but nothing standard (like mandatory support text and supporting "Alt text" for blind users). --Jimeee (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, for the arbitrary part, no this is definitely not arbitrary. With the release of Legendary Edition and Special Edition, along with all the guides published after the 3 DLCs, it is very clear that Bethesda and others now treat Skyrim+3DLC as a whole, where CC contents have not received such treatment. Almost all larger mods for Oldrim and almost all mods for Special Edition requires 3 DLCs or do not provide support if not, which means the community also treats Skyrim+3DLC as a whole. From a player and a user's standpoint, most players who play Skyrim will have 3DLCs by now, where many of them will not have a single Creation let alone all of them. Separating them is for user-frendliness and wiki is ought to be user friendly. When Bethesda launched Skyrim Special Edition Deluxe which contains all the Creations, maybe then it is the time to merge them. Lywzc (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(←) It is arbitrary to split the contents. Arguing for merging in a future scenario is just creating more workload which may never be done; let's just do it right in the first instance this time.

Jimeee's suggestion sounds good to me, i.e. mention the name of the Creation in the opening line for each artifact. This in combination with the icon should be enough. Regarding issues with widescreen, I'm browsing on a 16:9 monitor and the DLC icons on this page are perfectly visible. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You never give a reason to call it "arbitrary" while I do give the reason for the opposite. Why merging in the future? Because nothing is still, you do not expect every page to be the same in the future, do you? So I see no reason to not do it in the future. And no one is even saying to create a new page, just shifting the placement of paragraphs is not a serious workload. And it is only done in pages like this where they are mixed. Changing one page should take less than few minutes at most, while this page should only take less than 1 minute. And "perfectly visible" is also some companies say when complained about ther ads with those hard-to-notice restrictions and such. Lywzc (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearing Up Artifact Exceptions

As this page has gained more exceptions since this was last brought up, I believe we should add a note explaining why there are exceptions to the guidelines for what is an artifact. The note would explain that exceptions are made in cases where an item:

• All but qualifies for inclusion.
• Excluding it would break up a set of artifacts.
• It is generally treated like an artifact.

If an artifact does not meet the three guidelines currently listed, we then look at this list of exceptions to consider including it. For example, let's take the Sword of Jyggalag. It does not have an enchantment so it does not qualify. However, it ALMOST is qualified. Excluding it would not break up a set of artifacts, so that's a no. Lastly, it is generally treated like an artifact in the lore.

This alteration would require no major additions/removals from this article, and would explain the current state of the article to anyone who may be confused by the standing exceptions. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with exclusions of artifacts that are normally lore in gamespace if they do not meet the qualities so long as they are mentioned above. Take Oblivion's artifact page, it mentions the Amulet of Kings, Orb of Vaermina, etc still above. Morrowind's page mentions that items like the Bloodworm Helm and the Necromancer's Amulet didn't make the cut despite being treated like artifacts in-game.

That said, seeing as the Crusader relics share enchantments with the reforged relics of the crusader, do we exclude both of them, or one of the sets, or none of them? Zebendal (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)