Online talk:Crafting Motifs (compilation)

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Numbered versions[edit]

Someone linked Racial Motifs 12: The Falmer in Zone chat the other day. While I did not have enough gold to convince that player to sell it to me, it suggests that the numbering in the contents of this page is inaccurate, and parts are missing. Not to insult the work already put into this page, but I'm afraid it needs more research.--Jnutter819hi 15:25, 7 April 2014 (GMT)

They actually linked it? Because racial motif 12 is Barbaric. We are sure on that. I'm not showing any racial motif book about the falmer at all, and considering that ZOS already said we wouldn't be seeing the falmer anytime soon, I doubt what they linked was real. There are ways of linking fake items in chat in other games, perhaps that is what is happening here, because Racial Motifs 12: The Falmer is 100% fake. Jeancey (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (GMT)
That may be why they were unwilling to sell it even after saying "WTS": either they didn't want to get reported or they couldn't make it look that way in the Trade box.--Jnutter819hi 18:26, 7 April 2014 (GMT)
Unlikely they would be reported for it. Most likely the second option. Jeancey (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2014 (GMT)

15th Motif[edit]

I've seen a lot of people go on the internet that Zenimax said there were 15 motifs. Some people say it was Dwemer but I can't find any proof. --151.227.229.35 19:07, 30 July 2014 (GMT)

There have been no new motifs added to the game. They have said there will be new motifs in later updates, but right now the ones from launch are the only ones. Jeancey (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2014 (GMT)
If you look at current (ATM 100008) raw dump of constants from the v1.3.3 game data, there are a number of ITEMSTYLE_ allocated that are not used or available in the game to players as far as I know. This includes ITEMSTYLE_AREA_DWEMER, ITEMSTYLE_ENEMY_DRAUGR, ITEMSTYLE_ENEMY_MAORMER, ITEMSTYLE_ORG_DARK_BROTHERHOOD, ITEMSTYLE_ORG_THIEVES_GUILD, and ITEMSTYLE_RAIDS_CRAGLORN (I haven't seen it, but may well exist). These "new" unused motifs were added, I think either during the upgrade to Craglorn (v1.1) or Crypt of Hearts (v1.2.x) including Akaviri (Area), Ancient Elf (Area), Bandit (Enemy), Daedric (Enemy), Yokudan (Area), and Reach (Area). Mctaylor (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (GMT)
Except that these aren't actual motifs in the game. They may be in the data, but you cannot get them in-game. They may be available in future updates, but they are not currently available in the game and they won't be added to this page until they are. Jeancey (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2014 (GMT)
I agree with not adding them at present, I meant to explain the basis for the speculation of additional types, and point out that some new motifs have already added post-launch. Mctaylor (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2014 (GMT)
Speculation is better suited for the forums. And no new motifs have been added, just new racial styles for items. And even then, they aren't in the game, just in the data. Jeancey (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

Icons[edit]

What's up with the icons here? As far as I know, all the motifs use this icon in the inventory. —Legoless (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (GMT)

Oh, I didn't see this. The Icons are the icons in the Lore Library, not the inventory icons. The icons in the data associated with the actual text of the book. Jeancey (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2014 (GMT)
Hmm. Might be ideal to display both. —Legoless (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2014 (GMT)
I don't think we should. Every other book has the lore library icons, and it doesn't seem like it would be any detriment not to have them or any benefit to have them included. That's just my opinion though. Jeancey (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2014 (GMT)
The difference between the motifs and the other books is that the motifs are items as well. I don't think we want to document the item separately, so putting both the item and the book icons on the same page is the best alternative. —Legoless (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

Now named Crafting Motifs?[edit]

Are these not now named Crafting Motifs? Do the names need changing? --Rhynchelma (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's correct. This page also needs to be updated with the ~15 other motifs added since release. Alternatively, we could keep the racial series separate since they make up a single narrative. —Legoless (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I guess we need a consensus on which way to go then. --143.159.44.101 17:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of the new motifs have lengthy description, as they include 14 small crafting books. I'd vote for keeping them separate, meaning this page here remains for the "original" crafting motifs descriptions. Tib (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd be okay with listing all of these at ON:Racial Motifs to maintain the narrative of the original set. It seems inconsistent, however, to exclude half of the texts which are (nominally) in the Crafting Motifs series from the series' hub page. —Legoless (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
See here for an example. —Legoless (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Yeah, I guess I actually agree; if we are to have this page, it should probably have all the crafting book texts included. It's just that the layout of these books has changed and there are so many of them now. I'm guessing this page is from when only the original motifs existed? An all-including page might look rather messy, in fact I wonder why we need this page at all.
I don't think we should list these at Racial Motifs, better to have one big list then. These were not the only ones that were named Racial Motifs... Dwemer and Glass were also (but I don't consider them a part of the "original" list). Btw, with my previous answer, when I said "keep them separate" I meant that this page should remain as it is, and not creating any new pages at all, simply book pages and collection pages. Tib (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
2920 is very long as well, but transcluding all entries in a series to a single page is just standard practice. The other option would be turning this into a simple list page since the new entries have nothing to do with the original narrative, but that doesn't really work in lorespace. I agree that we should exclude Dwemer and Glass from the original set regardless of their old name. —Legoless (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing my problem was that I partly didn't see it as a serie.. That link you gave to this other page is a good example. Let's give that big list a go then :p Tib (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

More fixing needed.[edit]

I have no idea how to do this but the section separators still say "Up to Racial Motifs" rather than Crafting. Also, the previous/next parts are out of synch. Thanks --Rhynchelma (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I will change all the links, although these separators seem to have disappeared after I edited the link names for the respective "Lore" pages. Tib (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
indeed they have, thanks. --Rhynchelma (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Er, well I'm not sure it's a good thing ... anyways I hope the separators will return, maybe it's due to all the renaming that they are not showing right now. Tib (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The footer doesn't transclude thanks to the "skippage" parameter. We still need to decide what we're going to do about this hub page and the new motifs (some of which still need to be moved). —Legoless (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I think I understand. It's included in the small individual pages, but not on the big one. It showed temporarily during the renaming I guess, and I thought they are supposed to be shown. Tib (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Compilation[edit]

Is it really necessary for us to have a compilation of the ~50 crafting motifs? With each new motif that's added, the whole series becomes less and less connected. For example, does a description of Akaviri weapons really belong on the same page as a poem? While I could see an argument for the first 14, the inclusion of the others seems quite ridiculous to me. KINMUNETALK﴿ 22:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The first 14 were designed and written as a series. From Dwemer onward they have been designed to be split as chapters, which are not written as a "story" like those first 14. In my humble opinion only the first 14 have a place in lore and this page, in-line with the description on this page which has not been changed like the lore version. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The first 14 are called the "Racial Motifs", correct? Perhaps this page would be better titled as "Racial Motifs (compilation)", since calling them "crafting motifs" is misleading? KINMUNETALK﴿ 22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Reading this page shows that there is no desire to have the rest of the motifs added here. Though up to Glass were named as racial motifs I think that's when they decided to rename them to crafting. I can't really decide but I'd favour keeping them as Crafting Motifs, it's what they were written as. Don't forget the lore versions, though as I said I would favor simply deleting them (the latter ones, move the ones on this page), they have little or no information that is useful to lore. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
A compilation page for the original Racial Motifs makes sense, but I agree that we don't need to transclude all 50 texts onto a single page. Plenty of the new motif books are lore worthy though, so I can't see a good argument for deleting them from lorespace outright. —Legoless (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Keeping this as a compilation of the original 14 would work fine. As for the rest, I am indifferent over whether they need to be in lorespace or not, but they definitely don't need to be here. --Enodoc (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I'd prefer to rename this to Racial Motifs, since that is what they were and still are called in-game. Continuing to call them "Crafting Motifs (compilation)" is misleading, as it implies that it is a compilation of the Crafting Motifs, which it really isn't if it's going to be just the Racial Motifs. KINMUNETALK﴿ 09:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought everything was called "Crafting Motifs" now. Wasn't that the purpose of ZOS renaming them in this last update? That means the Crafting Motifs title is technically correct. But if it's just going to be the ones that were originally the "Racial Motifs", maybe we could call it "Crafting Motifs (Racial)"? --Enodoc (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think Racial Motifs suits. That's what this particular compilation was originally called, after all. Works a lot better than parentheses in my opinion. —Legoless (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)