Lore talk:Mudcrab Merchant

Deletion

It is proposed by Legoless that:

"merchant is not loreworthy per Lore:People guidelines (Easter egg character, not a historical person); ability for mudcrabs to talk is already detailed on Lore:Mudcrab; no evidence the Legends character is the same individual as the TES3 character"

I would argue that if the Legends character is a different mudcrab then there are two different mudcrab merchants and therefore they deserve an article as they won't be a pure easter egg anymore (see M'aiq). On the other hand if they are one and the same mudcrab it makes them a historical person important enough to be present in two different games. Also I would like to point out that there are no strict guidelines nor criteria on the Lore:People page, so I propose we vote on letting the page exist as I personally don't have an opinion on that. Phoenix Neko (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I’d argue that it doesn’t matter if they are separate characters or not—this Mudcrab simply doesn’t have any historical significance. This article contains very little information, none of which can be considered relevant from a lore standpoint; simply appearing in multiple games isn’t enough to warrant the Mudcrab Merchant getting a lore page—many minor characters like Methats, who appears in Battlespire and ESO, are far more noteworthy than the Mudcrab Merchant, yet don’t need lore pages, as they only play insignificant roles in the games they appear in. I don’t think that we should strive towards making lore pages for every single recurring thing, wherefore it makes most sense to delete irrelevant pages like this one. —Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Unless there is a historical event for which the character is a critical part, they don't deserve a lore page. That's why I don't think some of the more prolific ESO characters shouldn't get lore pages, such as the sibling treasure hunters, or Tharayya. They may allow for more information about important lore events, but they themselves just aren't loreworthy. The story, as it were, revolves around what they found, not them. If a large fire happens, you don't report on the guy who first called the fire department, you report on the guy who started the fire. Jeancey (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The mudcrab in legends is a throwback to Morrowind, its ability to talk is in doubt as the only person to witness that was hallucinating at the time. Multiple appearances is only a defined criteria for books, multiple appearances by people are not significant, rather most recurring characters are already (or become) significant historical figures. The mudcrab, whether recurring or a new species is not significant enough for its own page. If it is recurring it is nothing, if it is a species it is already covered on the mudcrab page. Delete. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "see M'aiq"? M'aiq is the classic example of a recurring Easter egg which does not belong in lorespace by virtue of being a historically irrelevant meme character, and I would refer you to the deletion discussion on Lore talk:M'aiq the Liar in this regard. I concur with Aran on all points, and would also like to reiterate that the pertinent information on talking mudcrabs is already dealt with on Lore:Mudcrab. —Legoless (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 to deletion, per all the above points. —Dillonn241 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

While the intention held by me is not to—if you will—"dogpile", the deletion proposed by Legoless is agreed with by me. This is thought by me because most of the information in the article originates in dubious sources, and because of all of the reasons listed by the many others whose concurrence has been voiced. — J. J. Fullerton _﴾talk﴿ 08:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

While I wasn't actually against the deletion now I totally agree with the decision to delete the page, thank you all for clarifying the situation for me. Phoenix Neko (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)