Category talk:Legendary

So: How do we define "Legendary"? Is it simply level? Or is it something more esoteric? Is it a singular event or deed? I would like to open this up for discussion, getting the opinions of those who are wiki contributors. I think a minimum of five to six contributors would have to agree, for the category to be added to someone's player page. Cordir 16:39, 24 April 2011 (MDT)

Here's the list of folks that - thus far - have been suggested:

• Cadee - first level 50 bard
• Coleman - injected a level of wit and humor that persists to this day.
• Daelin - 2nd runner up behind Jerald for biggest mouth.
• Dove - Epic Paladin
• Gaul - Epic Paladin
• Grismal - Hardest Hitter in TFC history
• Ginny - Most prolific seductress
• Jerald - Most talkative mortal or immortal ever
• Kaern - Most interesting/daring/adventurous player
• Maldobar - Personification of an Evil PKer
• Maimer - Personification of a Good PKer.
• Molo - Longest tenure and most effective FLI
• Madman - Quest Master Supreme
• Nyx - first level 40 thief/ordained
• Ozymandius - Biggest Ego in TFC history
• Pez - Questing-est, Funniest Mortal Ever
• Ptarchyzk - first level 40 muggle
• Stouthbound - Funniest Damned Ogre Ever (except Oook). Also hit really hard
• Syrinx - First level 50
• Syla -- Most Lovable Goddess
• Thaygar - God of Infinite Creepiness
• Tokugawa - amazing player, very kind AND knowledgeable. Longtime Greater God
• Tynian - The guy who started it all - and kept it going this WHOLE time. :)
• Welverin - Second Level 50 Third level 50 ever (Phooey was second). Prolific PKer. Hard hitter
• ZARA - most prolific newbie killer ever.

• I think this is definitely interesting and has great potential....I'd like to perhaps see it as hrm, almost a BlissPoll type of item and then posted to the character's wiki, just because some of these areas are super subjective. I'd hate to hear people call 'favorites' even though we'd be selecting them as unbiased as possible. Since quite a few oldies are back that would be willing to participate, it could be fun as well. We could do something like a nomination round, and then follow up with the voting. What are your thoughts? I am game for the moderator selection though as well. Just trying to think of things that might be mentioned. --Katrana 18:20, 24 April 2011 (MDT)

• There's no formula that covers the subject matter 100%. We could try and figure something out based on different types of "infamy"; there are infamous PKers, infamous explores, infamous roleplayers, etc. I think the easiest, and most hassle free method is to have a panel discussion on induction. Similar to the RoR plaques, this is mighty subjective...Rath

• Ultimately this is a player-run wiki so I don't want to offer TOO much of an opinion but I'm concerned there will never be a consensus on this. I would consider instead looking at the real purpose of the legendary distinction. Is it to call out certain people from the masses? Why not instead organize the player page in a way that highlights them. By created year maybe? If they played for longer than 5 years they get to be bolded? Not sure exactly but I think that continuing along this line will either create a list that only certain players relate with OR a list that is almost a copy of the players page just because criteria is impossible.--Natilena 22:11, 24 April 2011 (MDT)
  • Re: Natena - the purpose here (IMO) is to highlight exceptional and memorable player characters. TFC is approximately 17 years old, and full of amazing history that would have been lost to the ages if not for people like Cordir, Marisa, Kaern, etc. It is impossible to make a list whose criteria are perfect, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort. Many organizations from pro sports to occupational associations have a "Hall of Fame", and nearly all inevitably are subjectively picked via member voting (and generate considerable controversy). Furthermore, TFC's official Hall of Fame is not maintained, and because of it's age is a list very few players can relate to. Yes we run the risk of excluding people, but I think the benefit of honoring great contributors outweighs the risk of alienation. Just my .02 cents! Rath

• The reason I came up with this, is that I was getting *really* frustrated with a specific person's constant negativity about the People page on the wiki. "These people have no business being considered important" is basically what he keeps saying. So I removed the line '(in)famous individuals' from the People page, and thought some sort of way of designating those who ARE famous would solve his issue. Now, though, I'm starting to think that was a step too far. I agree: it *IS* very subjective as to who is famous. So.. on that note, unless folks think its a really good idea to keep... my vote will be to get rid of this category and have everyone simply listed the same way, without distinction. The 'fame' will come as a natural result of people contributing more to the player pages of those who affected them / their mud experience most. Cordir 09:29, 25 April 2011 (MDT)

• There are those items that are hard facts though...Cadee, first 50 bard, provable. Grismal, while not provable due to lack of info...I think most of us that did play back then (when damage was not capped) that he -was- the hardest hitter, Syrinx, Ptar, Nyx, all hard fact. We could easily do something like that. And in all honesty, it should be noted:) --Katrana 18:48, 25 April 2011 (MDT)