Online talk:Crafting Motifs

Akatosh?

The Order of the Hour is the datamined Akatosh style. I can't find any evidence of a second unreleased one. —Legoless (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if this information was given. The Eiditic Memory lists the Akatosh style (those privileged few who can access the test servers should not be ignoring the books section if it has been updated), and was the sole source for the listing. Without updates to the library its impossible to see how it can be called "false info" and not be suspect to revision. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Order collection is bugged on live (doesn't even have any text), so hopefully they'll fix it soon. —Legoless (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

On the PTS the Akatosh style is not listed under Eidetic Memory anymore, and the achievement name is Order of the Hour style. There was also a patch note saying Akatosh style name was a mistake. We can probably remove mention of it here. Contraptions (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, those with access to the PTS should be explaining non-obvious changes. There is no logical reason to check the patch notes for the PTS when no indication had been given that it had even been renamed, it was simply removed while an existing article was added (though misnamed). Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 12:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Plurals

I notice that we have quite a few pages with singular of "motifs" and commas instead of colons. I'm not sure where it came from, but I don't think it's right. In the PTS, template characters are given a large amount of motifs. These motifs are all "Crafting Motifs [#]: [name]". Does anybody have any protests before I begin moving the pages? - KINMUNE ﴾TALK﴿ 15:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would wait until the update is live. The pagename should reflect how it appears in the game (or at least use a redirect), but for the sake of consistency we can list them in a uniform fashion on our list pages etc. --Jimeee (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Jimee. The naming has been inconsistent, some of these have been motifs, and some motif. Its nice if they've fixed it though, but lets wait for the live patch. Tib (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Naming rework

With homestead update, motif names have been reworked, see at https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/318838/pc-mac-patch-notes-v2-7-5#latest (search for "motif book"). This would require renaming already existing pages and stuff, which I won't be able to do, so I'll just leave this comment here on a talk page hoping someone with those rights can fix it. Howellq (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

How to Acquire:

We really need a page that lists various ways to acquire them (and list on one page). Therefore:

• Redoran / Hlaalu /Telvanni Styles:
  • Thieves Troves in Vvardenfell.
  • Pickpocketing citizens
  • From Safe Boxes.

Unsure which is for which. Timeoin (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Fuller list:

• Dominion/Pact/Covenant - From PVP Vendors
• Dwemer: Location: Jugs, Pots & Urns in Dwemer Ruins
• Daedric - any daedric ruin/on any Daedra.
• Glass: Possible reward for completing daily equipment crafting writs in Wrothgar.
• Mercenary Style - Undaunted Pledges
• Xivkyn - ?, Imperial City.
• Yokudan Style - Repeatable Craglorn Dailies
• Ancient Orc Style - Old Orsinium/Rkindaleft
• Trinimac: Can drop from Orsinium Daily Delve Quests.
• Malacath: Orsinium Daily World-Boss Quests
• Outlaw Style: World/Dungeon Bosses im Hew's Bane.
• Ra Gada - Treasure Chests in Craglorn. ?
• Abah's Watch - "Laundered Shipment" rewards from Thieves Guild Daily Quests. ?
• Thieves Guild Style - Heists
• Assassin's League - Gold Coast world/Delve Bosses. (Style Material can drop from any blade-of-Woe assassination).
• Dark Brotherhood - Completing Sacraments.
• dro'm-Athra - Maw of Lorkhaj weekly quest.
• Ebony Style - Bought from Rolis Hlaalu for Writ Vouchers.
• Draugr - From Mages Guild, Fighters Guild, and Undaunted Delve Daily quests.
• Minotaur - ?, Gold Coast.
  • Possibly from defeating minotaur world boss.
• Order of the Hour - ?, Gold Coast.
• Celestial - Weekly Craglorn Trial Quests.
• Hollowjack - Witches Festival (Plunder Skulls)
• Harlequin - Crown Store Only?
• Stahlrim - Crown Store Only?
• Silken Ring - Cradle of Shadows
• Mazzatun - Ruins of Mazzatun
• Skinchanger - New Life Festival

Hope that ^^ helps.

I think that such a page would be too complex to be useful, as apart from a few they are almost all found in different ways/places. The information is or should be available on each motif's pages (style and collection), and it should be logical for someone to look on those pages first for information on how to find them. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Some ones that I missed earlier:

• Bloodforge - Bloodroot Forge (Defeating Earthgore Amalgam)
• Dreadhorn - Falkreath Hold. (Defeating Domihaus)
• Morag Tong - Halls of Justice Daily Quests
• Buoyant Armiger - found in Treasure Chests/from non-CE Treasure Maps.
• Ashlander - Ashlander daily quests.
• Militant Ordinator - from vendors at the Battlegrounds area. (Costs AP)
• Clockwork - ??
• Apostle Style - Completing Brass Fortress Daily Quests
• Ebonshadow Style - completing Blackfeather Court daily quests. Timeoin (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge

What kind of lunacy was involved in proposing a merge between this page and the styles page. This page is about the books, that page is about the styles that are in the game. Yes both pages link the individual motifs and the styles they unlock side-by-side, but that is the limit of the duplication. It's like proposing a weapons page and a materials page be merged because they both list the weapon and the materials needed to craft it, its just stupid. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The content is identical, I see no point in it being on two different pages. This one is just a condensed version of that one, and if this one was turned into a table, it would look exactly the same. The concept of the "Crafting Motif books" is already introduced on the Styles page, so it would be trivial to add a bit more to the Styles page on what the Motifs books are. Also I thought proposal banners were supposed to stay there until a consensus is reached, hence why they say "it has been suggested". The suggestion has been made, and that is not something to hide away because you don't agree with it. If this page is about the books, and is supposed to be in some way different from that page which is about the styles, then they actually need to be different. Maybe we should remove the Style links from this page, and the motif links from that page? --Enodoc (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The content is not identical, it is similar. Your idea to make them "different" is to make them less helpful? On this page perhaps the style links are unnecessary, but the motif links are certainly needed on the style page. People go to the styles page not just to see what styles there are, but also how to unlock them. This page shows what is needed to obtain the motifs, dlc-wise, and if adding how to find each motif is too complicated for this page (per above), making the Styles page (which is about more than just craftable styles if you hadn't noticed that crucial difference) have information on the styles, how to unlock them, and how to obtain and unlock the motifs would just be too much. Removing the links to the styles would just be a petty move to make this page seem even less useful, as it would then just be a list of the books. Instead it should be left alone so that users do not have to click multiple links to see what the book unlocks. Banners "should" but not "must" stay on page when placed, if the placement has any merit. If you really have thought this through and still think it a good idea go ahead and put it back, I can only say that I am glad I don't think like that. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing would actually be lost by merging the information on the two pages and having this redirect to the Styles page. In fact, the way it is now is actually detrimental to finding information. This proposal was based on a discussion on Discord about adding how to find the motifs to the site, where we discovered this (highly similar) information was on two different pages, and moreover, most people in the discussion didn't know about both pages.

Your bluster and hostility is completely uncalled for, as is unilaterally declaring this a ridiculous idea and removing the proposed merge banner. There was thought and reasoning behind this, even if you disagree with it, and you do not get to decide by yourself what is even worthy of consideration. --FioFioFio (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think if we look at the infobox of an actual book page (like Online:Crafting_Motif_4:_Nord_Style) we can see what's needed.

The two main fields are "Collection" > "Crafting Books" and "Crafting Style" > "Nord Style". From a categorization point of view, these both should remain and individual links because visitors aren't necessarily going to expect to find book or collection information on the Styles page - and why would they. Their first port of call would likely be "Crafting Books", if their starting point was the book page. Changing this could hurt findability. Note that the "Crafting Books" link in the infobox leads to this outdated page: Online:Crafting Books, when it should probably lead here or (what seems to be a duplicate page) this one: Online:Crafting_Motifs_(collection). Duplicate content sometimes can't be helped on a site, and I think this is one of those cases where removing it might be less helpful. I'm not sure how the way it is now could be seen as detrimental to finding info though. --Jimeee (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps those on discord need to spend more time improving the wiki before they decide "collectively" to trash another part of the wiki. The collective wisdom of discord, as with any other off-site area, can be overridden by one anonymous editor on the wiki, purely for the fact that it is on the wiki. Those are our rules, which those on discord may wish to learn before deciding again that they have the authority to change the wiki when they do not. For all your bluster and hostility, it is Jimeee who has found a page that is actually a candidate for deletion/merging as the Eidetic Memory has changed. This page was created because the compilation page was too long as it was, and could not conceivably hold all the crafting motifs displayed text. The Crafting Books page did not substitute because it was limited to those books within that collection. The styles page which is about all the styles in the game is no substitute or replacement for this page which is about the motifs themselves. Logic does not support an argument that says the style page will hold information on the books, nor does it support redirecting a page about the books to the styles page purely because some of the links on both pages are the same. I do suggest that a better argument than "some people didn't know this page existed" is used to support the merger, because frankly that is not a valid argument. I also suggest you concentrate your arguments on the reasons for the merger and stop fluffing your arguments with attacks on me. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I brought the proposal over here from Discord specifically because it is a discussion which should be happening here rather than on Discord. I don't actually disagree that the motif links are needed on the Style page; I made the point of suggesting that the links be removed specifically because it would make the page less useful – not because I think that would be a good idea, but because I wanted to show how similar the two pages are at the core. Both pages need both parts to be useful and helpful pages, but you really only need one useful and helpful page, as having two pages with practically the same information is neither useful nor helpful.

With regards to your listed benefits of this page; users can already see what a motif book unlocks on the Styles page, and yet it is from this page that you need to click multiple links to find out the full details of what is needed to unlock and craft that motif (from here to the Styles page, and then to the material page). If people are going to the Styles page to see how to unlock them, the information of what is required DLC-wise would be just as valid there, as that is the primary requirement for unlocking those styles. Since that DLC requirement also determines the drop locations of the Style Material, it really should be on that page already.

If this page "needs" to exist as an item page, then it should exist as an item page following the standard alphabetically-ordered table layout of an item page, like Style Materials, with DLCs marked using the DLC identifier {{Crown Store}}. Conversely, Styles is more of a Gameplay page than an item page, and would benefit the most from being sectioned by DLCs rather than just listed in order in a table. --Enodoc (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Enodoc here. The style page contains nearly all the information that is here and more. This page just seems obsolete. Also why force users to go through multiple links to find information when there is one page with everything on it? Only slight adjustments need to be made to the styles page to incorporate the missing info found here. I don't see how making any change would hurt findability, as stated earlier this page doesn't really contain information not already present on the styles page which is much more user friendly and informative. A simple icon for the DLC could be added next to the style on the styles page to indicate what DLC they belong to, which is what Enodoc is suggesting. In fact why wasn't that done already? The crown store styles are marked in such a fashion but the others are not. Enderkingdev (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as we aren't talking about merging the actual pages themselves (i.e the motif page / the style itself) then im all for the merge. Making one less link to click is definitely a good thing. Timeoin (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The original intent of this page seems to have been forgotten. This page exists as a repository of books that are considered "motifs" in ESO. It was never intended to be a guide or "how to" on crafting. That is what the Styles page is for. If people have somehow found themselves on this page, there is a 99% chance it was via a book page (according to what links here). This means that if they were on the book page prior, they wouldn't be any extra click to find crafting info, because there is a "Styles" link on the book infobox page itself.

Because the intent of this page was for books, the "(xyz Style)" part after the link should even really be there.

Per convention on other book pages, the main title on a book page always links back to an overview page where users can see a list of all the books that particular book is a series of. See Online:Triumphs_of_a_Monarch for an example. If this page were to not exist, then the book pages themselves would not have an overview page to link to. That's a problem. There is no way linking the heading of the book page to Styles would work. Of course, given the large number of motifs, the entire book page isn't transcluded on the overview page, but a list or table would acceptable.

In short, there needs to be a page thats reason for existing is to just list the books in the motifs "collection", independant of any crafting info. Mixing the two is unecessary and can actually be confusing. Imagine a user clicking a link expecting to see the overview of motif books, and be met with a crafting page. Endoc has the right idea as it should be treated as in item page. I'd change this page into table style, remove the "style" column and probably even remove the DLC headings. Just the books in numerical order. --Jimeee (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The books in the Motifs collection are already listed at Online:Crafting Motifs (collection). Perhaps it would be better to merge that way, with a link to the full motif book, as well as a link to that motif's collection. --Enodoc (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)