Wikipedia talk:Service awards

Number of articles edited

How about similar awards for the number of different articles edited? Bubba73 (talk), 01:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To show a wide breadth of contributions. Bubba73 (talk), 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would really fall under a service award kind of thing. Maybe a Personal User Award. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are awarded from one person to another for a subjective criteria. I was thinking along the lines of one you can give yourself (like these) for an objective criteria, e.g. editing 1000 different articles. Just a thought - no big deal. Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bubba73, seems as good a criteria as any, what kind of symbol were you think of - perhaps a wikiglobe with pins in it (like maps people use to show places they have visited), 10 pins per 1000 different pages edited!? ~ However, might look a bit like a voodoo doll!!!!!! – perhaps you have a better idea Quantockgoblin (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I like Bubba73's idea for a different reason -- I think that rewarding the raw number of edits made is counter-productive and bad policy. One of my colleague editors regularly saves 30-40 edits on single articles within an hour or two. Since we work in the same general area, most of the articles he edits are on my watchlist, which is, therefore, much longer than it would be otherwise. His average edits per article is 12.83. If he hit Preview rather than Save more of the time, instead of having almost 25,000 edits, he'd have maybe 4,000. (For comparison, another editor in the same general area has worked on 7 times as many articles with about the same number of total edits).. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason the game playing suggested by Jameslwoodward wouldn't be had any different with a multi article award. You just move from page to page to do it instead of staying on one page. Dkriegls (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this proposed award would recognise the breadth, width or range of an editors work I suggest it could be marked by areas of land eg; back yard, neighborhood, town, county , state/country, continent, global, universal etc. Lumos3 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Which service award should I choose?

I have been here since 2006, but I didn't do many edits until this April. I have 2,200 edits so far (not counting this one). Which one should I choose? Further information: Kayau (talk · contribs · logs) Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 10:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

this one BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot to update awards?

I don't suppose there is a “bot/tool/box” that you can drop onto your user page that will sum the number of edits you have made and work out the time of service on wikipedia and then produce the correct service badge/award on your user page? That is, when you cross the magic threshold, it will update the badge/status automatically. Might save all the questions asked about "do I qualify if …" - and yes, I understand that these badges are just for fun and not offical awards by Wikipedia to editors. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no bot like that that I've ever heard of. Seems unnecessary. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New Award Discussion - Ultimate/Almighty

For anyone interested, there's a discussion going on here regarding a new award at the 50,000 edit level. Why it's going on there and not here, I don't know, but whatever. Anybody interested in the discussion, hop on in. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I think everyone who watches the awards page should be in on a discussion to create a new award, I've moved the discussion here. The template page can still be viewed to see what the proposed award looks like. Equazcion (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate and almighty

I think ultimate and almighty might be going a tad far, especially if we want to future proof the system and allow for fifteen, twenty and in a few decades time 75 year awards. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. The existing highest award is a "Master" editor and is referred to as a "complete and perfect" tutnum; this would seem to be a natural extension of that. However, I am worried that this will lead to title inflation, and that there may well be a problem when the next level of award is created with these titles becoming truly rediculous even by our standards (the thing is already as long as my forearm). I mean, what are we could to top it with? "Sublime and Enlightened" followed by "Divine and Glorious"? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to just raise the requirements for Master editor, and add levels beneath it. Equazcion (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to seem mean or anything but that to me sounds a little unoriginal to just raise the requirements of the previous rank. It would mean that if we kept adding levels under that eventually someone would have a new award each time they made 10 edits or something like that until we no longer have any more space. I think that we should continue creating new awards and if a several people have problems with how outlandish they are becoming than we can just scale it back a bit. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 00:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

6 years 7.5 or ten years?

Up to 4 years increments are in 6 months, then we skip one and go to 5 years. I take the long view and would prefer 5 year increments after that, but would be open to a compromise with one extra at 7.5 years then 10, 15 etc. But I do think that 6 years fails to future proof the system.... (I believe there are some editors who would already qualify for the 6 year award, there maybe some editors who would qualify for 7.5, It will be some time before anyone qualified for the ten year award. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with six years as the cut off point. I mean, I presume we're eventually going to need awards of longer duration anyway. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe it would be better to make the cut-off 6.5 or 7 years, at the very least to postpone the problem of coming up with another new award. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

6.5 is a distinctly odd multiple for such progressions, so I think 7.5 is the logical choice if we want a level between 5 and ten years. But 6.66666 years (6 years 8 months) would in my view be more in the spirit of the system so I would like to propose a progression of 5, 6.6666, 10. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is 6.5 a distinctly odd multiple? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there are traditions of longservice awards in lots of organisations, but those I'm aware of tend to run on a decimal scale - 5 ten twenty etc. I don't see 6.5 years as something one would normally consider special, but if you think the gap between 5 and ten years is too great I'd be happy to celebrate two thirds of a decade. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I say it should just be 7 years, since 6 years fails to future-proof the system, and no one seems to like the idea of the .5. Equazcion (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support 7 years. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Book

If this is going to happen, there needs to be a new image for the book as well. All the other levels got either a new one or a modification of the last one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we give the previous book a USB port? And for the next one a Dead Sea scroll version ϢereSpielChequers 11:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A USB port sounds cool, but I worry that it would be too small for people to know what it is. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems that this is also being discussed [here:|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards#New_Service_Award] - perhaps we should continue further discussion there to get all the ideas in one place? - Quantockgoblin (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one last comment on this page, for those who are still looking here. I did add a small modification to the book that differs from the last but I do agree that it needs to be more blatantly obvious. I will see what I can do to modify the template - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What was your small modification? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(continuation, moved from Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Awards)

I saw some discussion on here a while back about a need for a new set of service awards so I have come up with this. I am open to just about any suggestion but I would ask out of courtesy that no one edit any of the templates themselves without first sending me a message. Thanks!

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 00:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn´t it be referenced to anohter material more expensive than plutonium? (just curious) - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Mithril? Or is the term patented? ϢereSpielChequers 08:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems nice enough to me, I like the wiki globe, and if further upgrades are ever needed then the globe can be upgraded in the same way that the stars have been upgraded e.g. made silver, gold, then platinum etc ... should be future proof for about the next 20 years! However, perhaps instead "bars/studs" should be added to "plutonium" medal/ribbon for each extra landmark? -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great, and probably be last one we need, as we could just add a +. I'd dislike a brighter metal after plutonium, it would hurt many editors eyes. Anyway, I'm just glad to see so many people working on this Wikiproject!Abce2|This isnot a test 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been talking with Gaelen about hafnium, but by the way, what do you mean by "perhaps instead "bars/studs" should be added to "plutonium" medal/ribbon for each extra landmark?" ? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that for each extra 5,000(?) edits you get say a metal stud on the left hand side of the ribbon holding the plutonium star and perhaps on the right hand side of the ribbon holding the plutonium star you get a bar for each extra 5 years service ... just an idea - but the new medal seems better (at least I won't need sunglasses to see it! :o) - Quantockgoblin (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is good. Rather than look for a better metal, I suggest we make it like a series (what I mean is, like the medals from Veteran Editor to Master Editor). We can make a difference in the colour of the globe like Quantockgoblin suggested, or we can use the same metals as in the above medals for the globe or star. We are obviously going to need more service medals as the project gets older (either that, or we abolish service medals altogether). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions on precisely what edits I could make to the images? Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The book should be edited to show it's more than the previous rank's book, maybe a little sticker on it with "now with secret appendix" or "now with 200% more Jimbo inside" or something. Or maybe a completely different book, maybe an old tome "tome of all knowledge". I think you know where I am going with this. ;-) Regards SoWhy 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions on the title of the alternate book award? By the way, does any one have any good pictures of the front cover of a tome? I haven't been able to find any. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 02:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Image of the medal is a little low-res so can't comment on the details. Book, partly torn cover, inserted book mark? Perhaps ask the last person who made the last book image to make a new version, as they will have a good template. However, could consider new format for the book too, but using the previous themes? For example: 8 inch floppy disk version of "First Book of Wikipedia", 5 1/4 inch floppy disk version of "Wikipedia Picture Story Book", 3 1/2 inch floppy disk version of Wikipedia Little Red Book, CD version of "Wikipedia Vest Pocket Edition.", DVD version of "1937 Wikipedia First Edition.", 16Mb pen drive version of "Book of Knowledge", 32MB pen drive version "Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain" and so on ... Each digital version can have sticky label showing the cover of the former hard-copy version of the award ... - just an idea!! -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

just some quick mock-ups (the first images is OK, but the second two are just to sketch out the idea): , , - Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the book that he uploaded is not one he created, but one from the actual book cover of the 1800's book The Complete Compendium of Universal Knowledge, so we might have to do some imaging of our own if we want a similar book. However, I do like your other ideas, it is new and something that hasn't been done before. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 23:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "Supreme award" made me think of something, a bit of a side point but still relevant.. Our current awards dont scale well with the number of contributions and the time passing. Currently awards are obtained after :

Nb of edits	Diff from previous (nb)	Diff from previous (%)
200	N/A	N/A
1000	+1000	+400%
2000	+1000	+100%
4000	+2000	+100%
6000	+2000	+50%
8000	+2000	+33%
12000	+4000	+50%
16000	+4000	+33%
20000	+4000	+25%
24000	+4000	+20%
40000	+16000	+40%
50000	+10000	+25%

So there are two problems with this scale : first the curve isn't smooth (especially around the 12000 and the 24000 edits marks) and there are already people far above the 50000 edits mark. Sure for most of us we will never reach such highs, but with each birthday of wikipedia, we're bound to find more "high edit count people" and the highest number of edits may grow higher and higher (assuming Wikipedia isn't stalling, but that's another debate). So saying 50K is the "supreme" rank is a bit short-sighted. That's why I suggest we make an entirely new scale, to correct theses two problems. The only problem with that is that some people are bound to loose ranks in the new scale, and might be unhappy about it. PS : feel free to move this message elsewhere if you think it clutters the discussion about the new award Ksempac (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The award scale does seem a bit random, but retrospective change might upset a few ... maybe just make the future upgrades both logical and achievable. As for new images for awards are these used for anything, they look simple and nice:

gold

silver

bronze

-Quantockgoblin (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also some discussion on Template talk:Supreme Editor (or Ultimate and Almighty Emendator of the Encyclopedia. My view is that we need to extend the system chronologically because the current system stops at 5 years, and for the sake of future proofing it I think we need to space the future levels further apart. I'm less concerned about the number of edits than the longevity because I suspect anyone who stays around for decades will at some point slow down their editing level, so I would suggest we keep the existing system for the first 5 years and 50,000 edits and then develop as follows:

6.6666 years and 55,000 edits

10 years and 65,000 edits

15 years and 80,000 edits

20 years and 95,000 edits

25 years and 110,000 edits

33.3333 years and 135,000 edits

50 years and 185,000 edits

75 years and 250,000 edits

This has a steady 3,000 edits a year after the initial few years (except for the very final level), and an increasing chronological interval between awards. We already have some editors above the 250,000 mark, but obviously we won't have anyone with ten years tenure until the pedia is over ten years old. ϢereSpielChequers 15:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is probably to late now to look into this, ... but why are edit number and time on Wikipedia linked at all? To me it should really only be about the number of edits? And, if you need both things, why no have two awards, one for edits and one for time. Edits being related to trinkets like medals etc, and service time could perhaps be related to an oak tree starting from an acorn to eventually the might oak.

Anyway let's face it, no one is really going to overhaul the system, but future awards could be simplified. Instead of ever more elaborate medals, perhaps something like a laurel wreath surrounding the last medal could be used, wherein each 10,0000 edits results in the award an extra laurel leaf onto the basic laurel wreath? Just an idea? -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against the existing system of the service awards, not the intervals or the fact that time and number of edits are needed. I say we should leave them as they are and focus on the new award (except the idea of the floppy disks, that´s kind of creative, but I don´t know how to fit it or if it should be fitted yet). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving the current awards in place we do have to decide how big a gap in time and edits between the current highest award and this new one. My view is that automated tools, minor edits and so forth mean that the sheer number of edits is not a very good way to "measure" editors, there are people with half my edit count who have contributed far more than me to the pedia, but for those who care about it we have wp:EDITS. However there is nothing else to commemmorate length of time spent here. So as an alternative and to use some of the ideas for objects and pictures I suggest that we extend with a new set of awards based on number of months in which you have made an edit. We'd probably need a bot that people could use to tell them which award they are entitled to, and I suggest multiples of 50 months so that there is minimal overlap with the current system. So something like:

Months when you've made

an edit over 10 edits Picture to include in award

50 Memory stick

100 3.5" floppy

150 8" floppy

200 punch card

250 paper tape

300 Quill Pen

350 Stylus

400 clay tablet

ϢereSpielChequers 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers, I started off not liking the idea, but I kind of see where you are going with it - a sort reward for consistent contribution (I think?) i.e. the total number of months in which you have made an edit. However, in theory you could get a "clay tablet" with 400 single well spaced edits - admittedly over 33 years! If I have a gripe with this idea, it is that I'm bit worried that if a bot is required to tell you if you qualify for a service award (or not), then the award might be seen as a bit too complicated (perhaps it is just me?). That said, a user box that changes to the next award when you qualify (assuming that it is possible to make one?) then it doesn’t take much understanding, you either have the award or you don’t. It sounds a bit like my idea of a time-based award system, but with just a spot of checking to make sure you did some editing in that time!!! Perhaps you need 10+ edits in a month to get the month counted? However, my guess is that there will be very few takers for re-inventing the awards system, so I say work with what we’ve got! Make a new medal, new book, new ribbon and new funny names! - Quantockgoblin (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I've amended my suggestion from 1 to 10 edits a month. ϢereSpielChequers 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would agree with Damërung about the award system scale but if the consensus is that we create a more even slope in our scale then I think we should pursue that possibility. However, in regards to the table that WereSpielChequers created, the fact that a user would only have 250,000 edits after editing consistently for 75 years seems a little low to me, but I guess it all depends on how often they log in. By the way Quantockgoblin, I really like the images that you came up with. I think they would make a great start for a new section of the rating system. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody also posted here (somewhere in the middle of this huge discussion) that It´s a relief this new award is not even brighter than the last one (making me think that he´s right and brightness shouldn´t be the increasing factor, but beautyness). That´s why I think that maybe we should modify that image to change the sunshine for something more like a halo of light or something (but I still think that's the only thing that deserves to be modified). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 13:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change any of the existing awards. There's nothing wrong with the Plutonium Star as it stands now. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot of good brain-storming. However, to get anywhere with this, I think we should start with a firm proposal and have comments wrt that proposal. For now, I think we should work on only the next award. As a starting point I propose starting with Template:Supreme Editor (or Ultimate and Almighty Emendator of the Encyclopedia award as started by Gaelen S.. My suggestion is to alter this suggestion by replace the "book award" with a new set of "book awards" based on disks i.e. for this award, the book to be replaced with image on right. If you have any comments wrt number of edits, or time requirements etc for the next award please add them. Once we have the next award nailed down, then we can start thinking about future awards. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about the floppy idea, specifically the fact that we're starting off again from the "my first wikipedia" book. I think I'd rather have the complete compendium of knowledge in paperback than the kiddie book on disk. The mere update of the medium is the reward, rather than more knowledge? They've reached this high level only to be thrown back to the beginning? This almost seems like a slap in the face. Just my opinion. I would personally stick with books, but if you want to go with a computer disk, that's alright; but either way, let's not send the message that Wikipedians care more about technology than knowledge. Equazcion (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

True, I see what you are getting at. But then again, isn't Wikipedia a triumph of digitally accessible knowledge over static hardcopy-based knowledge! When Wikipedia first started out it was far inferior to a hard copy version of encyclopaedias like Britannica. However, the fledgling ‘pedia has grown from humble roots and in most ways is now far better than those dusty tombs. The disks are meant to be a nod to those humble roots and a nod the digital future. Also, I don't see these awards a true "rewards" for effort (they are self-awarded), and so I don't think people will see the disk award as some sort of slight (could be just me I suppose?) -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion, I prefer to keep the books, perhaps more modifications to the last one could be good idea (since the actual difference is too small). Maybe blue decorations could be a good idea (like an important bok or something). Something more decorative. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC) ➪➪

In response to Quantockgoblin, just to clarify, I don't think people will feel slighted by the fact that it's a disk, but rather by its supposed content. If we're going to consider disks as an option, let's go with content that isn't a throwback. Off the top of my head, how about a box set of 8-inch floppies containing "the complete interactive compendium of knowledge". Though Damerung, a metallic-bound book would also be a good step up. Equazcion (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the "content" of the award is a bit of a red herring - when the "my first book about wiki" was awarded/made Wikipedia's content was far greater than what would fit into simple hard copy book - the latest version of the book award would never be able to hold the current content of the latest version wikipedia. So what has capacity of the medium that holds the award really got to do with anything?! The number of disks is also i.m.o. not very relevant (if true the latest book award would not be a single volume but a book shelf of books!). The awards are just emblematic. The awards are about progress, moving forward. This idea behind the “disk type” award is that emblematic of moving from static hardcopy version to digital dynamic editable version of Wikipedia ... in short the seeds of progress. I think another book-based award would be a bit dull, and lacks a little imagination! There seems to be some sort of “law” that as Wikipedia gets bigger it gets stuffier! However, if people don't like the disk version, then they don't like it!! -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The complete compendium of knowledge isn't supposed to be Wikipedia's entire content, but rather all the knowledge a master editor would need. Look at the books in the other awards. They're just supposed to be "editors' manuals" that correspond to the editor's level of experience. Besides I think the compendium is actually a real book, and not a terribly long one, which could probably fit on a few 8-inch floppies. Of course the content is just symbolic, but even so, the symbol you're suggesting is of novice material. Again I don't have a particular problem with the disk idea, just with going back to the same title as is given to novices. Even symbolically, it doesn't make sense to me. The next award would have more substance if the title were stepped up, rather than just the medium on which it's stored. Equazcion (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

← Equazcion, I didn't think these book awards were meant to be editors' manuals - have I missed something obvious? I don't see anything in the titles that suggest that to me, rather the opposite, titles like "1937 Wikipedia First Edition" and the quite playfully entitled "Wikipedia Picture Story Book - Fuzzy Squirrel In Wiki~Land"? -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important thing now is to focus on the development of this 'new book', anyone has a good idea for the design? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 23:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC) ➪➪

I agree with Damërung, it would be great to get any number of new book designs for consideration by editors (the more choice the better!). For my part, I would of course like to throw my floppy "disk-book" idea into the ring for consideration as "a good idea for the design". I guess when we have a few firm alternative book designs to consider we can get feedback from as many other editors before deciding on the final design -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the discussion was basically dead in the water here and was wondering what the plan is for putting the finishing touches on the service award set. The book needs to be completed, or at least that is what I am getting from the conversation here, and I was wondering whether anyone has created anything or has any good ideas for it's design? Should it be a new form of the old book, or a new book all together? Lets not let this just fall to the wayside. What ideas do people have? - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 07:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

← The problem is that no one (other than me) has proposed an firm "book image" (or any alternative image(s)) to allow editors to select which they like best. But, yes I agree, let's finish the job - so get your proposed images in, so we can agree on something -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, any other ideas or designs for the book will be welcomed in the table below. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Damërung, thanks for making the table - I've added my effort (you seemed to forget to add my image!). Also, I'm not sure if it is the "done thing" to vote for your own image ... but I don't see why not, so I have :o).

Ps Damërung is your image the finished article or is it still under development? It does have the nice "W" for Wikipedia, but the "T" is a bit odd unless it stands for something like "Total" etc ?!

Finally, Damërung maybe you can add a few more columns to the table as not everyone knows how to add columns to a table, thanks -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The first image is not completed (and this is both reply to Quantockgoblin and comment for everyone else), that first image is actually just an idea of how to create a picture (either modifying it or creating a whole new) of the last book. I found that image almost by accident and I thought that it could be a good idea of how to edit the last book. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 23:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No.	1	2	3
Image	(idea only)	Wiki "disk-book" is designed to represent the new generation of encyclopaedia, a digital editable version - a nod to the future and away from static old fashioned hard-copy encyclopaedias. It is also upgradeable for future Wiki service awards e.g. 3.5 inch floppy disk, CD, DVD etc.	Another?
Votes	Gaelen S. (talk) ☩Damërung ☩.	Quantockgoblin (talk)

Any other images to include in the above table? Any more votes for either image? - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 04:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be a little dead. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. We can't really decide on whether or not we should use the award I proposed and what changes we should make to it. I think that since this conversation has basically come to a dead end, that we should decide on what we are going to post on the service award page. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 06:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, keep on going with that. Can you make changes or editions to the picture of the book so it looks like the first example in the table above? (a very important-looking book) - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can try, but I can't guarentee great results. The issue is that you need a base image and there is only so much you can do to change the image. However, I do have some ideas and I will go ahead and try some of them out. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Temporary new level added

I made some simple edits to the Master image to make a Master Editor II award. You can see it on the main page. I just added a star in the center and stripes underneath the words on the ribbon. No book or separate ribbon images yet. This is really just meant to get development going again after this discussion for some reason died. Equazcion (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The image, as well as the ribbon and the userbox were already created long ago, and there´s a link to that at the beginning of this lng discussion. It wasn´t placed because there were some business left to discuss. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with levels

First, I just awarded myself a higher service award -- the Master Editor. My reason for posting is one might think that, based on my tenure, one might think I should be qualified for the next level & that I'm a slacker for not having that many edits. (Last I looked I was still in the top 500, but still steadily falling.) The reason for this discrepancy is that every Wikipedian goes through phases where they edit less often than others, & the longer one contributes to Wikipedia the more likely one will go through a period where very few edits are made. (For example, there were three months last year where I averaged only 50 edits a month.) And the higher the levels, the more likely this will occur. (Right now, the only way I can get another service award before another is created would be to make at least 10,000 edits a year for three years -- & with my Real Life(tm) schedule, that ain't going to happen.)

Based on all of this, I would suggest that instead of creating more levels, why not add something similar to service stars? Say, once an editor reaches the top level, she/he is eligible for a bookmark for every year above & beyond the needed qualification, & something similar to Quantockgoblin's bronze/silver/gold wreaths for every 50,000, 100,000, & 200,000 edits respectively. (I picked those numbers for binary purposes; one could only have all three if she/he made 350K edits beyond the top service award.) That way tenure is recognized as well as productivity (i.e., number of edits) are recognized. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A system like that would greatly increase the # of service awards one would receive. I for one support it, but maybe the numbers should be lower? I say this because if, for example, one bronze star was awarded for 1,000 edits, then a user who may not have years but have edits could get three stars for three-thousand edits. Of course, these bronze awards would increase over time, so there would be an award equal to possibly five or ten. I would think this applies to all editors, not just extremely high ones. So that way, a top-icon or such could signify the "rank" of the user based on the award system. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "x edits"

Do we count edits in all namespaces, or just those in article space? It occurs to me that the most constructive edits are those in article space, and to a lesser extent Template, Help, Portal, File and Wikipedia, so perhaps it should only be those which count. Maybe omit (a) all forms of talk page and (b) all edits to own user page. Further, is this English Wikipedia only, or all Wikimedia projects? I've done a fair bit on Commons too. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Does it matter? What matters is; you're an editor. So am I. So is User:Rich Farmbrough. You are every bit the equal of Rich Farmbrough and his 436,259 edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Currently this is a purely English Wikipedia project. If you want to suggest a similar program that runs across multiple projects I suggest you do so on Strategy ϢereSpielChequers 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rules for displaying awards

Are these awards "official"? What I means is is it against the rules to display an award become one likes the image on the template. It seems like these are just unofficial, and anyone could display them, since there are no rules against displaying them (I mean, its not like it breaks any of the user page rules or is offensive or anything). Am I correct? Bryan.Wade (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at your edit count, you fall short of the requirement for even the lowest (Burba) by 117 edits. Keep working at it! --Redrose64 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats not my question. I want to put the templates on my page simply because they look cool. As far as I can tell there is no policy that says that I can't do this. But this administrator keeps messing with my userpage, even though this isn't official policy or anything. Bryan.Wade (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The lede of Wikipedia:Service awards states "It is achieved strictly by a mechanical count of time registered and number of edits.", note the word "strictly". However, if another user has been amending your user page, ask him by what policy he feels entitled to do that. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, but the picture just looks cool. So is this official policy or not? Bryan.Wade (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I could see a '74 Ford Gran Torino parked somewhere, and drive off with it because it "looks cool", but as I didn't pay for it, I'm not entitled to it, so it's theft. As for awards - I could go to a military memorabilia shop and buy a Purple Heart. But if I put it on my chest I'd be offending people (quite apart from the fact that I'd be committing a federal offense), because I'm not entitled to it. The various awards on Wikipedia:Service awards each contain text like "This editor is a xxx, and is entitled to display this yyy."; here again we have the word entitled. In the right-hand column of each row it shows the requirement for that entitlement. I have a little over 6 months service, and 3449 edits, 2168 being in article-space. Thus my user page shows {{SA-journeyman}}, which I believe that I'm entitled to, and I invite any editor reading this to verify my claim, using this tool.

I also suggest that you study WP:USERPAGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in hypothetical discussions involving this very same possibility in the past. I will not search the archives to bring them up now but I had made the point that some editors are known to remind other editors about the correct display of the awards on their userpage if such display does not match the qualifications required for the award. To cut the story short, there is no strict rule that prohibits display of the awards even if the user who displays them does not qualify for them. If I'm not mistaken even Jimbo was awarded a higher award than he was qualified for but someone eventually removed it. In a similar past discussion another editor was complaining about having qualified for the numerical portion of the award but not for the time served portion. He went on to display the award regardless. In an open editing environment like Wikipedia it is easy to independently verify if a user qualifies for the awards. If a user does not qualify for them but still displays them others can draw whatever conclusions they want, but that's where the matter ends. The fact remains that these awards are not enshrined in policy and edit-countitis remains dangerous for an editor's health. As such a grain of salt should be used with such displays. The above comments coupled with the fact that there is wide latitude and freedom traditionally enjoyed by users in their userspace leads to the conclusion that this user is indeed allowed by precedent to display these awards despite not having satisfied the (voluntary) requirements for their display. Conclusion: Trying to enforce compliance with a non-existing policy is contra-indicated and runs against the tradition of the freedom enjoyed by users in their userspace, while at the same time emphasizing (and fighting for) edit-countitis. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There has to be honesty and self restraint, otherwise the whole scheme gets debased and we'd all be displaying {{SA-mastereditor2}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Each editor has their own set of values and do not react similarly. Also as I mentioned above one can easily verify from the contributions if an editor qualifies for a particular award. Self-restraint is for important matters. This award is clearly not an important matter and it was never intended to be such. Counting edits as a measure of service here cannot be considered a serious metric. There is a very good reason why there can be no enforcement of the award criteria; It would never be accepted as a policy in Wikipedia. There is simply no consensus for such criteria here. This page was even proposed for deletion in the past. Do not overestimate the importance of these tags. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 18:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively before and the answer is simply "no", these awards are not official, and you can post whichever one you feel you deserve, regardless of the counts posted. There's no policy regarding these and no one can rightly enforce them. Lots of people who don't actually "qualify" for these awards have them posted, and there's no practical reason anyone should have a problem with it. It's not important which "awards" a user has posted. They're extraneous to the main purpose of being here and are basically just for fun. Equazcion (talk) 23:43, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the additional details. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just realized you basically already said what I said, but you're welcome anyway :) Equazcion (talk) 23:59, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Equazcion for your nice comments but I think your reply nicely complemented mine because you provided additional stats and facts which I found very interesting and informative. Nicely done. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 00:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaming suggestion

Rather than Master Editor II, how about "Grand Master Editor"? Just my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, anything other than the "II" would be nice.  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Any kind of consensus needed on this? Rapier1 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nearly a month with no objection seems fine. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Change made. The Roman Numeral levels seem forced to me as well. Along that same line, how about renaming the "Veteran" levels to simply reflect the color of the star? Leave "veteran" as is with the Iron Star, but change the others to "Bronze Editor", "Silver Editor", "Gold Editor" and then "Senior Editor" is the platinum level. I tried thinking of an Olympic equivalent and decided simply leaving the metal colors there made the most sense. Thoughts? Rapier1 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Grand Master" sounds too whimsical. This is why there is both a "stuffy" and a humorous option available. If Roman numerals seem forced, then be a Supreme and Perfect Emendator. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whimsical? I'll caution you not to mention that to the next martial artist you meet, as that is the term used in virtually very dojo that has a teacher of that caliber. Many guilds also use this title Rapier1 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that in some contexts it is not whimsical. "Grand Wizard", for example, is a name that sounds quite whimsical but belongs to the members of an organization which is anything but whimsical. Western Culture (of which English, and therefore this Wikipedia, is a part) attaches an air of antiquatedness or mysticism with "Grand Master" which is not used in "stuffy" fields such as business or public schooling. People who like to live more varied and interesting lives—such as, perhaps, someone who attends a dojo—are provided the option of a more varied and interesting choice. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you are generalizing a tad too much here. My degree is in business management and I'm a financial advisor - certainly two "stuffy" fields (as you describe them). I am also a martial artist (tae-kwon-do, kendo, fencing and shooting), a student of both Western and Eastern esoterica, and an avid science-fiction/fantasy fan. If you are trying to say that either I have to go with a nonsense term like "Supreme and Perfect Emendator", or simply have a boring "II" after my title (not that I come close to qualifying for either), because I have to be either nonsensical or binary, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The attempt here is to give the first track of service awards titles that are both understandable and original. Simply putting a "II" or a "III" is not very exciting, and with all the brainpower we have in the project we should be able to come up with something that is a little more fun. I've put my suggestion out there. Any other thoughts? Rapier1 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Royal Editor barnstar here

Template:Royal Editor (or Ultimate and Holy Sage of the Encyclopedia) should be merged here as it's the same style of barnstar. Requirements are:

• 100,000 edits and
• 10 years' service

Wikipedia was founded in 2001, so in 2011 we'll start having editors with 10 years of editing. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Should definitely merge; it's weird that anyone put it anywhere else to begin with. The 10/100 is a bit much, though. Since it cannot even be applied for over a year, it is actually an immediate WP:TFD target. I will probably go change it myself.  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have merged it. I'll move the templates to a name like SA-royal or something, if nobody opposes or finds a better name. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to adjust the edit count numbers here and there pre-merge, but dunno if that worked out well or what. The counts appeared to be growing at much larger rate the term of service, making the higher levels impractical. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Renovation proposal

So its edits AND time... ?

So its edits AND time... and a healthy edit count alone is not sutable to allow advance up the ladder from "experienced" to "veteran"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the time requirement should be dropped. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it doesn't really affect me, but I've always thought it silly anyhow.  fetchcomms☛ 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I always get killed by the edit count. I like to stay around more so than edit tons. bibliomaniac15 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I favor time AND edits both, I also get killed by the edit count, because I usually work on fewer but longer articles. Just edit count alone would encourage editcountitis, waste of bandwidth and saving changes more often than we already do... Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to keep my stance on this question...time is equally important. We don't want to encourage rush editing. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure I think there can be time requirements in it, but the time requirements are very overboard. It's like if someone does nothing for 5 years they have more importance than someone who registered later than them. Not very logical.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The service awards do not measure importance or any other "good" thing. They simply and methodically measure time and quantity. The significance of the award is up for personal interpretation. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought time and edits are out of sync. For example, I'm senior on time but master on edits, and I don't use a bot or tool. And let me speak blasphemy-bot edits shouldn't count as much. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevse here, especially because I can't even figure out AWB or Huggle, let alone bots... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I use Twinkle and I see no reason that shouldn't count. (I don't use the others because they turn Wikipedia into a project, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm still a reader before I'm a writer.) — the Man in Question (in question) 23:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I always get killed by the time, so here is my solution: ignore the time. You're welcome to leave the time there, though. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's gospel! 4 T C 13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed reduction of requirements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A clear consensus to reject the proposal has been established. Thanks.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the number of edits required for the lower tier of awards is too high. For example, someone is considered a "novice" until they have 1,000 edits? I would stop considering someone a "novice" anywhere between 100-200 good edits. I think the standards for the lower awards should be lowered when it comes to edit count. They are conceived with the notion that new editors immediately start racking up hundreds of edits within months. Here are the changes I propose, which I view flexibly:

This discussion has been put out of its misery

• Novice (or Burba) – 1 month and 100 edits
• Apprentice (or Novato) – 3 months and 500 edits
• Journeyman (or Grognard) – 6 months and 1,000 edits
• Yeoman (or Most Excellent Grognard) – 1 year and 2,500 edits
• Experienced (or Grognard Extraordinaire) – 1.5 years and 5,000 edits

I think these changes are reasonable and realistic. I also think the gap between experienced and veteren remains reasonable.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would still call someone with 200 very much a novice. I can do more than 100 edits in a day. If anything, I think the system is too lenient. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  Comment - With respect, yours is exactly the mentality that I view as a problem. Editors who assume that since they can do hundreds of edits in a day, other users are just going to start doing the same. Consider the editors who make 50-100 good edits per month. Perhaps they make a couple of edits a day, perhaps they go to school or have a job and edit only on weekends, making a dozen or two edits during that period. Presumably, they would have earned the right to be called, essentially, "beginner" after 100 edits (a month or two of editing experience -- meeting the time requirement), gain experience within a couple of months and no longer would need to be considered "novice" by 500 edits. I see no reason to be a little bit more lenient when giving these users a right to an award.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  The Service Awards are just what their name implies: not awards for talent and invaluableness—these are WP:Barnstars; but awards for time served and edits given. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I think that lower standards for just these awards is okay. I agree that there should be some gap in between experienced and veteran. As a note to the Man in Question, I think that you should take into consideration the fact that Younger editors won't get 100+ edits a day, and I'm not sure whether this applies to you specifically, but most the people who do in fact have 100+ are reverting vandalism, and I know from experience that it takes much more time to undo vandalism without the ability to revert. I tend to edit when I can, and almost never have over 100 edits a day because of school, but that doesn't mean that I'm any less important to the Wiki. I think that these awards are to inspire younger editors to set goals to achieve, and also to have a little fun. I know that when I was in the younger stages of editing I set these goals for myself, but I don't anymore and I think it would make it that much easier if we lower the requirements just a little bit. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  I do take it into account, but by virtue of being a younger editor, you inherently are a novice editor, etc., with or without the award. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on my own experience on the wiki, the current intervals seems to match user maturation accurately. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current levels seem perfectly appropriate in my experience. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reducing the current requirements is not something that I could be in favour, it´s like trying to reach an award more early than it rightfuly should be acquired. Like trying to cheat for it through a change consensus. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Wait -- cheating?? I completely understand the first part of your reason, but cheating? Who are you suggesting is trying to cheat for these awards? People commonly put the award on their talk page based on self evaluation and completely ignore the "requirements" (which cannot be enforced and probably shouldn't be called requirements) anyway. If I consider myself an "experienced" editor, I can put that service badge on my userpage if I wanted to. There's no enforcement. These awards are self appointed and frankly are completely, completely, worthless. If you want one of the awards bad enough to resort to "cheating", you can just take it. There's no reason to try and change the consensus. As stupid as it would be, if I put the "Ultimate editor" userbox on my page, it's not like I would be punished. Not that's something I would ever do. Stinging Swarm ^talk 05:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current levels seem fine... Johnfos (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Some people come here with articles they've written off wiki in word or whatever, and an individual edit of theirs might involve over an hours work. Others like me start fixing typos and linking articles. A system that allowed for this would become over complex, sadly that may seem to undervalue some people's edits by putting them on a par with typo fixers with rampant wp:editcountitis like myself. However there are programs for good and featured content for those for whom 1000 edits is genuinely a big contribution. So apologies to those of you who feel held back by the likes of me, but I feel that the service awards need to have a touch of the lowest common denominator about them, and it should takes a lot of minor typo fixes like my early edits to earn a service award here. ϢereSpielChequers 10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The lower requirements would make the Novice award more or less meaningless. Plazak (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Service awards should really reflect the quality of the edits. An editor doing 1000s of edits just changing some simple punctuation hardly gains any experience (let's be honest: editors with 50,000+ edits fall in this category) but an editor who writes only a couple dozen of good articles can be considered a veteran and merits a service award just as well. I realize this may be difficult to assess, but it is something to consider. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone could have made 100 edits two years ago, but would they still remember everything?  fetchcomms☛ 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed policy re displaying awards not entitled to

Substance over edit count

Is there any possibility that our criterion could be based on actual content rather than edit counts? I do the vast majority of my editing offline in a text editor, and then cut and paste it in all at once. As a result, I have a relatively low edit count, less than 30k at last glance. Yet in comparison to all of the "top editors", the actual content I have added drawfs them. I've found it a little frustrating that this system considers comma corrections to be equally important as 5-page articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a heading to your section here, tweak as desired. Judging substance over edit count is subjective and it would be hard to create a hard-and-fast system like this. –xeno^talk 14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how such an award would be possible—and even if there is some way to pull that off, that would really be a different award than the service award. I guess I'd say that's what ordinary barnstars are for. — the Man in Question (in question) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Substance should be a factor. There are ways to at least put a "flavor" of this into awards? Possibilities? 1) Exclude edits that are reverted, 2) Exclude edits that affect < 5 words, 3) Exclude edits done by anti-vandalism, and other tools, 4) Count many edits done consecutively to the same article as a single edit. The last would involve someone writing a simple tool, but I'd be in favor of that, and would help with coding. (There are a few experienced editors who purposely make a dozen edits where they could easily make one, apparently, since they regularly lord their count over others, with the goal of increasing their edit count. One wouldn't want to encourage honest editors such as Maury Markowitz to turn to the dark side!) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good god, and who is going to audit the user contribs so they can display the correct shiny bauble? This is needlessly complex. –xeno^talk 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Darn, you beat me to it ... I started thinking about how to code a "Service Award Tool" ... it's not a big coding job ... a few hours ... It's not necessary for the tool to review *all* an editor's edits, just a statistical sampling of them. 100 samples or so would give a pretty fair measure of my work, at least. "Why" do it at all? Is it needlessly complex? Yeah, maybe. Smile. What *I* like about the awards is understanding quickly whether I'm dealing with a new editor or a very experienced one. So, for that, no tool is necessary. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, this sounds like a different award. Service, by definition, is not a measure of substance, simply of something (time, edits, whatever) expended. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the awards for number of edits exist. It is completely reasonable to have such a thing. The problem is that the awards themselves don't recognize the number of edits as much as they label the person who displays them. Their names aren't neutral. For example, the award that recognizes someone having 200 edits doesn't acknowledge the person's edit count -- it simply says "this user is a novice". Basically, these awards are awarded based on service but unintentionally apply a label to an editor's experience. Swarm^Talk 21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, that comes down to the simple truth: awards are just for fun. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Must be for fun! And probably too hard to figure out how to monitor. But that said, I think the edit count is a little high for substantive content editors and rewards vandal patrol overmuch, valuable as it is. Maybe not count bot edits or various other types of mass editing, but how can one tell an AWB edit of spelling or bad wikilinking from a manual edit of several articles with the same incorrect info? Or, do we presume an increased ability to use wiki-tools? Except that some don't work for us mac people... Not sure the answer, just some thoughts. Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

True. "Problems" with awards...really aren't that big of a deal. Not worth stressing over at least. Swarm^Talk 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with The Man in Question about this award system; that is for recognizing the number of edits and the time spent here in wikipedia, not to recognize the value of the edits. But, as stated by somebody else above, some editors do not make a large ammount of edits within a day, but just a few (a few regular edits due low time in real life to be in wikipedia or a few edits of huge changes each), this, or the inability to be daily editing (or frequently) and/or the fact that some editors do not use tools like Huggle (which accelerate the edit rate) make it hard (or very very hard) to reach such levels for users who can collaborate substantially and for a long time. And, as also stated above: these awards are just for fun, so I still propose to reduce the edit requirements (number of edits) of the last barnstars, so they can be rightfuly achieved better.

The Man in Question also told me that the last awards are for the editors who have done the most great deal of editing here, and I agree, but I say that reducing the edit requirements will not necessarily make eventually almost all editors (or a big group of editors) to have achieved the highest levels. This because some of them retire, or will have large wikibreaks between edits and will not reach that far. So in conclussion, reducing the requirements is a good way to find a point in the middle of all this... just voicing myself out, cheers. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm.... I already proposed that, here, and you opposed it. Swarm^Talk 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for clarity's sake, you, Swarm, were proposing a reduction of the requirements under 75,000 edits, whereas Damërung wants a reduction of the requirements over 75,000 edits. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see that at first. I assumed, since they were going on about the editors who don't edit that much, that they weren't talking about people with tens of thousands of edits. Swarm^Talk 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact administering such a thing is easy. What you need is a small committee which judges editors recommended to them by themselves or others (you can put a small, static criteria on those who do the recommending to frustrate trolls/vandals) and hands out awards. They can even do a bit of research by asking authorities in areas to verify such things, etc.

Disagreements with judgements could be referred to the Wiki upper-echelons like your ArbCom or whatever, since it should happen relatively infrequently shouldn't create a lot of work.

And gotta say, I sympathise with these content editors a lot, preventing vandalism, etc is very important and without them wiki would be a mess. Without substantive content writers, there simply wouldn't be a wiki.

Maybe they can have an identical list of shiny baubles/grades with completely different requirements and a more flashy outline, greater banner size, etc.

Job done... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.82 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

get rid of the glow

get rid of the glow. looks ridiculous. i like the ultimate award much better than the three before it, as it looks simply like a regular medal, since it has no glow. the ones with the glow look kind of weird. I enjoy these medals, and would rather they be made more suitable for display. does that sound good? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out the section "Renovation proposal" above. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's gone. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

hey, thanks! and thanks for your replies. appreciate it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Veteran vs senior editor

Should veteran editor not be above senior editor? Mootros (talk)

Agree I strongly agree with it. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 15:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. This baffles me. Senior clearly has seniority. — the Man in Question (in question) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. While "veteran" means "Having had long experience, practice, or service", "senior" has more of a general meaning of "superior" or "older". Hmm, no, I don't think it would make sense to put veteran above senior. Swarm^Talk

K i change my mind senior does sound more veteran :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArieScheurwater (talk • contribs)

Discrepancy from the recent updates

Following the recent update, one of the section headers is currently showing one Tutnum title, while the userbox templates are showing a different title.

My assumption is that {{SA-tutnumIV}} and {{sa-tutnumIV-ubx}} were supposed to be updated at the same time as the section header at WP:SERVICE#Veteran Editor IV (or Grand and Glorious Tutnum) was changed ... is this correct? I'll leave it for others who are more familiar with the changes to fix it; I just wanted to point out the discrepancy for those who are involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It was a little late last night when I made the changes. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

New Auto Updating Template Now Available

This template automatically changes the service award automatically when each milestone is achieved so editors will no longer need to keep changing it manually. I believe that a discussion was started about having bot updates the service awards, but this seems like a better choice. So, what do you think? Set Sail For The Seven Seas 313° 1' 0" NET 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you haven´t done it, I would... That was brilliant! but it still needs more explanation in the "usage". - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - The documentation is now a lot clearer and also has examples. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 356° 59' 30" NET 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Help With the Templates

I have one quick question about the aligning of the SA-novice tag. I need it to align to the center so it can work with my user page. How do I override the default setting of aligning to the left and make it align to the center? (Please answer on my talk page, thank you) --Clarince63 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Replied on your talk page as requested. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 357° 14' 30" NET 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But as for me . . . , I would like to align the ribbons left/center/right too. I'm just sayin'. kcylsnavS (kalt) 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your first edit was 12 February 2007, but with just 367 edits (including deleted edits), you rate {{Novice Editor Ribbon}}. The ribbon versions are merely unpositioned images, so you could put the relevant one into a one-row one-column table like this

{| align=center
|{{Novice Editor Ribbon}}
|}

which produces:

Novice Editor

Is that satisfactory? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to do things the knowledgeable way instead of the lazy way, yes. Or, as they say in Bugzilla: WFM. I wanted my ribbon to the right, though, so instead of putting all the user boxes in the table too (I don't like tables), I needed to enter three <br /s>'s after the table. I like the ribbons. Now all we need is for W.org to enable the inline display of the edit count so we won't have to manually update our edit counts. Thanks for the help - it works great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New image uploaded

I see that File:Editor - bronze ribbon - 1 pip.jpg has been replaced with a version having a red (instead of bronze) star. Was this discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all! Moreover, there's nothing to discuss: red is not bronze, and the bronze star/barnstar is the most commonly used star on Wikipedia. I have restored it. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the same thing has been done with Apprentice Editor (File:Editor - blue ribbon - 0 pips.jpg). I've gone ahead and fixed it but it looks like this is a recurring problem. Lost on Belmont (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they've taken offense on my wall. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a recurring problem - I've just popped over to Commons and had a look at the uploader's contributions - only these two awards were altered, both being early yesterday morning. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to help improve; I'll use the ones I made for my page.-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New categories added by The Man in Question

Please have a look at the following new categories that User:The Man in Question has added and tell me if you see something peculiar. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is a Vanguard Editor and is entitled to display this Unobtainium Editor Star with the Neutronium Superstar hologram.

This editor is Grand Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to keep the floor plan of The Great Library of Alecyclopedias, including its ancient access keys.

I see something peculiar. If it took 12 years to get to 500,000 edits, it should take more than another 3 years to get to 1,000,000 edits. These edit/year counts could use some adjustment. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:45, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're not meant to be proportionate. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Has the 'paedia been around 15 years? DBD 08:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, only 8 or 9 years so far. Nice work on the award designs though, MiQ, they look quite spiffy. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:07, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

All issues of the time, etc., have been extensively discussed, as logged above. — the Man in Question (in question) 13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of people in that discussion were in favor of significantly lowering the requirements. I have to agree with them. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:43, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody considered taking User:Rich Farmbrough's edit count (657,959 and rising) and dividing that by the length of time that Wikipedia has been up? That's going to represent a max rate, I guess. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rich has done some bot editing from his main account, from what I understand, so I wouldn't go by that. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:08, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination on the basis of the origin of edits (biological/mechanical) is not recommended. I know robots are under-appreciated and often deprecated but they should not be discriminated against. Let the best editor prevail regardless of the origin/mix of their edits. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Average rate of edits necessary to meet the conditions of the award in the required time

Level	Edits	Time (year)	Edits/year
Novice	200	1/12	2400
Aprentice	1000	1/4	4000
Journeyman	2000	1/2	4000
Yeoman	4000	1	4000
Experienced	6000	1.5	4000
Veteran	8000	2	4000
Veteran II	12000	2.5	4800
Veteran III	16000	3	5333
Veteran IV	20000	3.5	5714
Senior	24000	4	6000
Senior II	35000	4.5	7778
Senior III	50000	5	10000
Master	75000	6	12500
Master II	100000	8	12500
Sovereign	250000	10	25000
Ultimate	500000	12	41667
Vanguard	1000000	15	66667

Personally, I think asking for anything over 10000 edits/year is ridiculous. If you made 10,000 edits every year, for 15 years, you deserve the Vangard award.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the purpose is to have the highest award be essentially beyond attainment, at least by a normal human being. If the Vanguard requirements are reduced to an obtainable level, then perforce another award would have to be created above that. Else how will we know if The One has been found? There should always be another level to strive for. It never ends. There is no time when one should be able to lean back and say "At last, I have obtained the highest level. My work here is done." One's work here is never done. Herostratus (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

10,000 in a year is attainable, or at least it will be if I fail to find a job by the time I've done another 1534 edits... see here --Redrose64 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been here nearly three years and I've done rather more than 30,000 edits, so 10,000 a year is definitely attainable with current tools and broadband speeds. If tools continue to improve, connections speed up and most crucially server responses speedup then I think some of the higher new levels will become more practical, and whilst fifteen years is currently longer than the life of the pedia, in twenty years time we may have many editors with well over fifteen years contributions (though I suspect there will be many for whom a million edits would seem a long way off even after twenty five years let alone after just fifteen). ϢereSpielChequers 14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst 1,000,000 edits in 15 years is all but unachieveiable, 1,000,000 edits in general, is not. There are two requirements, so why assume that one must come with the other? An editor who has spent 15 years here will still have "something to shoot for", in aiming to breech the 1,000,000 edit mark.Mk5384 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think it's rediculous, and edit counts are not a measure of quality. I've been here nearly 5 years but have 12.5 kiloedits, which is equated to someone who's been here half as long. (Yes, I really just said typed the word "kiloedits".) I think that this understates my value - and if you do a lot in one edit, isn't that being efficient (i.e. good)? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most people here, those requirements are extremely high (as I have said before). Bot edits should not count (as an excuse to have such requirements) because they do not mean quality, but just quantity, and some users don´t even use them. I think 12 years and 100,000 edits should be the top; any editor with such level is worthy the ultimate level (as someone said above, 10,000 edits a year are possible). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 15:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This Apprentice editor did some more calculations. 66,667 edits per year equals 183 edits per day equals 7.6 edits per hour every hour of the 24 hour day. (Leap years not considered.) How long does the average editor take per entry? And how long does crafting an actual new article take? In any event, achieving Vanguard it a fantasy, so I think I'll award it to myself just for the fanciful delight!--S. Rich 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)

Just in case anybody's interested - I now have 10,009 edits, of which just three were from more than a year ago. So I have verified that 10,000 per year can be done. Now, any (paid) jobs going? Otherwise I shall rack up another 10,000 by this time next year. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone above mentioned Rich Farmbrough. Rich is certainly on pace to have the million edits required. Whilst admittedly supremely difficult, this is not impossible.Mk5384 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

BUT it doesn´t mean that we should take that as the top (I mean: we shouldn't establish that one as the mark to reach for achieving the ultimate medal just because he has tons of edit counts). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to point out that it is possible. The Vanguard Award (and I may be wrong),seems to be the only one with which users are taking issue. The fact is, that there is a dual requirement for each level; time, and edits. For example, I have well more than the required edit count for the next award, but still have not put in the required amount of time. I suspect that this is the case with many users. But at the very top; the Vanguard level; we're probably going to see that reversed. That is users meeting the the time criterion, but not the edit count. I don't think that 1,000,000 edits is out of line, to earn the highest award possible. If it takes the vast majority of users much longer than 15 years, so be it. And whilst most of us, if we do stick around here that long, will not be displaying the Vanguard ribbon on our 15th anniversaries, Rich is on a pace to prove that it can be done.Mk5384 (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In my case, I´m in the inverse situation, I have reached time requirements for an advanced medal, but haven´t done enough edits. I´m not complaining, I don´t care waiting (I´m not in urge to reach any medal) but I consider even 500,000 edits quite MASSIVE (and not necesary)

I´m not saying that it is not or barely possible, it´s just that my point of view is that a huge number of edits does not reflect quality necesarily but just quantity. Users who make few edits but large and significative ones are more worthy as (or as worthy as) users who use automated programs, bots or minor edits that get acumulated faster. Some user said before that he made very few edits because he worked on an article to make one huge change instead of many small edits (adding several paragraps, including many images at one time, etc...). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other side of the spectrum we have the editor who made a tiny edit (such as adding a comma or fixing a typo) which took a long time to spot because it was buried deep in the text of the article. This type of editor doesn't have much to show for his/her edits but they still exhibit an admirable work ethic. Further we have the editors who make lots of fast minor edits simply because they correct their own mistakes or they just refine their edits as they go along. Obviously the latter will accumulate more edits than the former due, partly, to their free-wheeling style of editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

When you come across such multiple-editors, stick a {{subst:uw-preview}} on their talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This will not fix all of the problems because the multiple rapid edits can also happen due to brainstorming while creating an article, due to new ideas coming along while one edits. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to forget that there are users who use bots or automated tools. I'm not saying that it´s wrong, but they would get an award that someone's else effor deserve more. Also, people could start focusing in automated tools or rapid small edits in order to get a medal that's placed too high. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all

As the original creator of this page, I would like to express my appreciation for all those who have come after and added many improvements and corrections. Thank you all for caring! Herostratus (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been an enjoyable and interesting discussion. What's your next proposal? Piano non troppo (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Now it's time for you to enjoy the fruits of your labour! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 265° 7' 15" NET 17:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tutnum VI

I don't see the cigarette burn. mechamind90 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the black splotch on the middle-right of the cover. Compare Tutnums II and III where it's introduced. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for change in the policy of awarding Service Awards

In my opinion, the concept of awarding service awards yourself is incorrect. It's like an army telling you to present yourself a service award when you meet the criteria. Also, this concept of self-awarding leads to users placing service awards that may not be appropriate. I feel that service awards must also be presented to the editor by a second party, probably a bot on the editor's talk page just like a barnstar. The editor may then move it to his userpage or do nothing. This concept might also encourage new users who are not even aware of the concept of service awards. Imagine, you are a new editor who just met the criteria for the first award and the service award is presented to the editor on their talk page, what a great deal of encouragement that editor would receive! --JovianEye (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason these awards exist is to be self-awarded. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Some (many?) find the service awards objectionable and would be appalled to be awarded one. Complete removal from politics is a prime asset of the awards. As for people giving themselves unearned awards -- enh. It just shows them to be fools. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the awards, ignore them. You don't have to be concerned with them. And you will never be awarded one, since they are self-awarded. Some people (many people) like this sort of thing. And any award has dissenters—some people find the idea of awards in general to be immoral. These awards are both earned and (by nature of not being subjective) apolitical. This page has twice been nominated for deletion, and has both times royally failed. To award oneself an objective award is not a demonstration of foolishness; to award oneself a subjective award would be. That is why so many proposals for trying to weight the importance of certain kinds of edits over others, etc., are impractical and (might I say?) ridiculous. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• We have plenty of awards to give out to others. The point about these ones is that they are earned through a combination of tenure and contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• These aren't meant to serve any kind of official capacity. To me while they serve some semblance of purpose, they're still rather facetious, just like "barnstars", "cookies", etc. An official system of service stripes would put too much emphasis edit count and length of time here, which alone don't necessarily translate into quality of edits or even amount of experience. The current "system" of only semi-serious recognition is ideal, in my opinion. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:31, 7 Apr 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the Man in Question; as he said above, I feel that a regulation for this is impractical. If you don´t like them you can ignore them. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 15:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the Man in Question. The problem, JovianEye, is that many awards stem from popularity contests. I was rather amused — in being confronted in one of my rare appearances in ANI — that one of the editors supporting me stated that he didn't particularly like me. I accept that: I've been a professional editor for major companies. My job outside of Wikipedia is not to win brownie points with writers, but to improve writing quality. That's a role that seems to work here, as well. However, most other Wikipedia editors are not in that position — for them, the opinion of other editors is an important gauge of performance. Hence, it is appropriate in Wikipedia to have both community awards, and (relatively objective) self-awards. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)