Wikipedia talk:Service awards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
High traffic

On 2012-02-16, Wikipedia:Service awards was linked from Reddit, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Updating large service ribbons for Grand Tutnum and higher levels[edit]

If one reviews the various enWiki awards ribbons one can see that, in general, the small (72px) versions of the ribbons very closely match the larger (120px) versions of the ribbons. However, the large and small ribbons for service awards differ quite greatly from each other beginning at Grand Tutnum. In addition, the award stars used on the current large ribbons do not match the convention used in attaching service stars and 5/16 inch stars to medals and ribbons, viz. a bronze or gold star represents an additional award, while a silver star is used in lieu of five bronze or gold stars. I have taken the liberty of redesigning the large ribbons to use bronze and silver service stars, as those are more appropriate for service awards, as well as redesigning them to match the small ribbons. However, prior to uploading more than twenty images to Commons to create a table (which I have started here), I wanted to know if there was any desire to update those images. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I can't really visualize it, can you show an example? Or I'm willing to trust your judgement. Herostratus (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Herostratus: I'll try to upload the images tonight. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Herostratus: here is the transcluded table. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposed updates to service award ribbons
° Level name Current images Proposed image #1
(service stars)
Proposed image #2
(match small ribbons)
Small Ribbon Large Ribbon
1 Registered Editor Editorrib1.PNG Signator (tiny border).PNG No change
2 Novice Editor Burba rib.svg Burpa Ribbon.png No change
3 Apprentice Editor Novato rib.svg Apprentice Ribbon.png No change
4 Journeyman Editor Editorrib4.png Journeyman Editor Ribbon.png No change
5 Yeoman Editor Editorrib5.png Yeoman Editor Ribbon.png No change
6 Experienced Editor Editorrib6.png Experienced and Established Editor.png No change
7 Veteran Editor Editorrib7.png Veteran Editor Ribbon.png No change
8 Veteran Editor II Editorrib8.png Veteran Editor Ribbon 2.png Veteran Editor II stars.png Veteran Editor II stripes.png
9 Veteran Editor III Editorrib9.png Veteran Editor Ribbon 3.png Veteran Editor III stars.png Veteran Editor III stripes.png
10 Veteran Editor IV Editorrib10.png Veteran Editor Ribbon 4.png Veteran Editor IV stars.png Veteran Editor IV stripes.png
11 Senior Editor Editorrib11.png Senior Editor.png Senior Editor stars.png Senior Editor stripes.png
12 Senior Editor II Editorrib12alt.png Master editor.png Senior Editor II stars.png Senior Editor II stripes.png
13 Senior Editor III Editorrib13.png Master editor 2.png Senior Editor III stars.png Senior Editor III stripes.png
14 Master Editor Editorrib14.png Master Editor Ribbon.png Master Editor stars.png Master Editor stripes.png
15 Master Editor II Editorrib15.png Master Editor II Ribbon.png Master Editor II stars.png Master Editor II stripes.png
16 Master Editor III Editorrib16.png Master Editor III Ribbon.png Master Editor III stars.png Master Editor III stripes.png
17 Master Editor IV Editorrib17.png Master Editor IV Ribbon.png Master Editor IV stars.png Master Editor IV stripes.png
18 Grandmaster Editor Editorrib18.png Grandmaster Editor Ribbon.png Grandmaster Editor stars.png Grandmaster Editor stripes.png
19 Grandmaster Editor First-Class Editorrib19.png Grandmaster Editor FC Ribbon.png Grandmaster Editor FC stars.png Grandmaster Editor FC stripes.png
20 Vanguard Editor Editorrib20.png Vanguard Editor Ribbon.png Vanguard Editor stars.png Vanguard Editor stripes.png

Well, sure. This looks fine to me. Anybody have any objections? Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. No objections. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a preference? I like the striped ribbons since they match the small ones. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh I get it, we're 1) assuming the small ribbons are to stay as is, and 2) looking at two possible versions for the large ribbon. OK. Well, they're both good... the idea of matching the small ribbons is a virtue, but the other version is nice in a different way. Can't decide! Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jkudlick, Thanks for doing this. It's an improvement in most places. However, I think it really needs a little bit more work! Basically, the design is inconsistent with the naming scheme. For instance "Senior Editor" has four (dark) stars and the next level SE 2 has one (bright) star. A more logical choice would be to keep the groups together, but differentiate clearly between groups while keeping the number of star relatively low. So, Senior Editor: 1 star, SE2: 2 stars, SE3: 3 stars. Followed by Master Editor: 1 star -- ME 4: stars but use thin gold colour marking around the purple or something like this .

For Grandmaster Editor and above, I am not happy that the wheels are supposed to be replaced. What is wrong with the current design? The solution you are proposing for the top three levels is not very elegant and makes these levels indistinct from the levels below. The current design really reflects the naming. Please don't change these. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mootros: If you go to WP:RIBBONS, you will notice that the vast majority of small ribbons match the large ribbons. The stars I used follow the convention used by service stars where one silver star is used in lieu of five bronze stars, and the striped versions match the smaller ribbons. I think the ribbon designs for Senior Editor and above could be reworked. I will probably do that and re-upload new striped versions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to answer your question about the ship's wheels. Right now, I'm on my phone, and the three ribbons are literally indistinguishable; they are even hard to tell apart on a PC screen. The point of the ribbon is to easily tell what award is represented, so that is why I feel they need to be changed. Not many editors legitimately hold the title of Grandmaster or GM FC, and I don't think there are any legitimate Vanguards, so there won't be too many images being changed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I see, this is something from the US forces. I think that's the problem why it seems to make no sense. It's not widely known and there is no apparent link to Wikipedia. Why can we not have something more creative, rather than following something obscure as a uniformed US services?
Yes, I agree there is no point changing the wheels as almost no one legitimately uses them at the moment. Yes, in the long run we can make them more distinguishable. This could easily be done be having a silver wheel for the top level and possibly only two wheels for lower levels. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Veteran_Editor_Ribbon_2_wheels.png Mootros (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree the use of the service stars is US-centric, which is part of the reason I prefer the stripes. I recall seeing ribbons with one, two, and three wheels somewhere, and I think those would certainly be distinguishable enough from each other for the top three levels. I can try to make smaller versions of those in lieu of the current striped ones, and I'll eventually make SVGs of all the ribbons. I'm considering different color schemes for the Veteran, Senior, and Master levels. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. This sounds great! To be honest I think the lower levels might needs some overhaul too. They look quite scruffy. I very much like the idea of different colours to denote groups. I think you could also combine two colours; the trick would be to have subtle difference/ i.e. shades of different colours for each levels that nonetheless are still clearly distinguishable. This would avoid a potential clash of colours and possible circus look ;-). I trust your judgement; from what you already designed its looks very neat. Cheers! Mootros (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll start working on them later, but I think converting the lower levels to SVG will do a lot to help them look cleaner, but given what has been discussed already, I may begin a larger overhaul. I'll be sure to post the results here before making changes to the service award templates and pages. There is no need to worry about a "circus look;" I have an interest in heraldry and vexillology, both of which also believe that simpler is usually better. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Herostratus, VMS Mosaic, and Mootros: Here is an updated table. I have converted all of the larger ribbons to SVGs with updated designs and proposed names for the higher levels to kind of match the Grandmaster First Class name. I'm not sure why the PNG preview for the Registered Editor ribbons renders that way, but if you look at the original file you can see what I thought I had uploaded; that first level may require a total redesign if SVGs are to be used. I changed the ribbon colors for the Yeoman and Experienced levels to match Journeyman, since it seems somewhat more rational to me. As always, feel free to comment. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work! I can see your approach certainly is elegance through a clear and simple design. Two minor points: The light blue for "Apprentice Editor" looks slightly out of place now. I think gold without any dot might be a more logical choice, which will also mirror the sequence between "Veteran Editor" and "Veteran Editor II". The second point, I think the different strip colours between "Veteran Editor II-IV" and the "Senior Editors" is back to front. I feel it might be better to have "silver" strips first and than the "gold" strips. This type of colour progression would then also mirror the sequence between the silver of the "Novice Editor" and gold above, as well as the silver stars and gold wheels. Apart from that almost perfect, IMHO! Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
About the changes in names. I suggested two simple name changes for the lower levels for better consistency. The was not welcomed by one editor. I am happy to have the names reviewed and altered, but I suggest to do this separately from the ribbon design. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Very nice @Jkudlick! My final comment: To advance your concept of minimalism further, it might be worthwhile to check and possibly fine tune the key colours: Sliver, Gold, Purple. I think, if we have three basic colours (ignoring the red for the tildes), it might further improve the overall appearance and consistency. What I am saying is, you might want to try matching the reappearance of the colours: i.e. the gold of the Apprentice and Journeymen could reappear in the strips of Senior Editors. I think, this slightly darker tone of gold might give more elegance than the brighter yellow and of course links the different levels. Similar the silver of the dots could be identical to the silver of strips and stars, but it possibly already is. See what it looks like; it might make the difference to be top-notch. Cheers, Mootros (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I've made the stripes on the Senior Editor levels and the ship's wheels on the GM/Vanguard levels darker to match the bronze gold of the lower levels (though I kind of like the brighter gold on the wheels). I also matched the silver of the Registered/Novice levels to the silver used at all other levels, and made the tildes and incremental stripes purple. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Great! Yes, maybe revert to the brighter gold for the wheels; it might give a bit of extra contrast for the top levels. I like the purple tildes! Mootros (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done I'll begin working on the smaller ribbons later. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposed updates to service award ribbons
° Level name Current designs Updated designs Incremental awards
Large Ribbon Small Ribbon Large Ribbon Small Ribbon Level 2 Level 3 Level4
1 Registered Editor Signator (tiny border).PNG Editorrib1.PNG Registered Editor.svg Editorrib01.svg Registered Editor lv2.svg Registered Editor lv3.svg Registered Editor lv4.svg
2 Novice Editor Burpa Ribbon.png Burba rib.svg Novice Editor.svg Editorrib02.svg Novice Editor lv2.svg Novice Editor lv3.svg Novice Editor lv4.svg
3 Apprentice Editor Apprentice Ribbon.png Novato rib.svg Apprentice Editor.svg Editorrib03.svg Apprentice Editor lv2.svg Apprentice Editor lv3.svg Apprentice Editor lv4.svg
4 Journeyman Editor Journeyman Editor Ribbon.png Editorrib4.png Journeyman Editor.svg Editorrib04.svg Journeyman Editor lv2.svg Journeyman Editor lv3.svg Journeyman Editor lv4.svg
5 Yeoman Editor Yeoman Editor Ribbon.png Editorrib5.png Yeoman Editor.svg Editorrib05.svg Yeoman Editor lv2.svg Yeoman Editor lv3.svg Yeoman Editor lv4.svg
6 Experienced Editor Experienced and Established Editor.png Editorrib6.png Experienced Editor.svg Editorrib06.svg N/A
7 Veteran Editor Veteran Editor Ribbon.png Editorrib7.png Veteran Editor 4C.svg Editorrib07.svg N/A
8 Veteran Editor II Veteran Editor Ribbon 2.png Editorrib8.png Veteran Editor 3C.svg Editorrib08.svg N/A
9 Veteran Editor III Veteran Editor Ribbon 3.png Editorrib9.png Veteran Editor 2C.svg Editorrib09.svg N/A
10 Veteran Editor IV Veteran Editor Ribbon 4.png Editorrib10.png Veteran Editor 1C.svg Editorrib10.svg N/A
11 Senior Editor Senior Editor.png Editorrib11.png Senior Editor 3C.svg Editorrib11.svg N/A
12 Senior Editor II Master editor.png Editorrib12alt.png Senior Editor 2C.svg Editorrib12.svg N/A
13 Senior Editor III Master editor 2.png Editorrib13.png Senior Editor 1C.svg Editorrib13.svg N/A
14 Master Editor Master Editor Ribbon.png Editorrib14.png Master Editor 4C.svg Editorrib14.svg N/A
15 Master Editor II Master Editor II Ribbon.png Editorrib15.png Master Editor 3C.svg Editorrib15.svg N/A
16 Master Editor III Master Editor III Ribbon.png Editorrib16.png Master Editor 2C.svg Editorrib16.svg N/A
17 Master Editor IV Master Editor IV Ribbon.png Editorrib17.png Master Editor 1C.svg Editorrib17.svg N/A
18 Grandmaster Editor Grandmaster Editor Ribbon.png Editorrib18.png Grandmaster Editor 2C.svg Editorrib18.svg N/A
19 Grandmaster Editor First-Class Grandmaster Editor FC Ribbon.png Editorrib19.png Grandmaster Editor 1C.svg Editorrib19.svg N/A
20 Vanguard Editor Vanguard Editor Ribbon.png Editorrib20.png Vanguard Editor.svg Editorrib20.svg N/A
  • I'll adjust the sizes of the SVGs later tonight - I had read that 218x60 was optimal for making SVGs of ribbon bars, but it seems that Wikipedia ribbons are proportionately 20% taller than that. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
These look fine to me. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mootros, Herostratus, and VMS Mosaic: I've updated the SVGs per the comments above. If these are acceptable to everyone, I will make the necessary adjustments to any templates and to the small ribbons so that they match the larger ribbons. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mootros, Herostratus, and VMS Mosaic: Small ribbons are done. I've just noticed that the medal images for the first six levels will probably need updating if they are to remain visually similar to these new ribbon bars. I do not have the necessary graphics software to make those changes. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll deal with the change, as long as the old versions are retained so they can still be displayed, including by those who currently do so.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait, what? There's no need to retain the old versions. We just load the new images over the old ones, right? We don't want or need two or more versions of the same thing to be be extant, right? Herostratus (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree, no point in a parallel scheme. Everything will properly display as images are updated. Mootros (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep the "old" ones and allow editors the choice, or, maybe just "go back" to the original ones. Several editors did a good faith project here, but, for me at least, the new approach kind of lessens the fun of seeing these ribbons on user pages. The "older" ones come across to me as colorful, festive, and brighter. These new ribbons have a World War II look. Was this change on rfc, or other noticeboards? Thanks. Randy Kryn 02:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: The only notices that I saw on any templates prompted discussion here, and not at any other noticeboards. There is no requirement for a formal RfC, so I began discussion here regarding the mismatch between the small and large ribbons. I saw that I was getting comments from editors who helped create this system years ago who supported the idea and liked the way I was designing the ribbons, so I took the ball and ran with it. If you wish to begin a formal RfC, I will gladly participate and abide by the results.
Regarding whether to display the old ribbons - that is of course one's own choice. There is a real-world history of being allowed to choose whether to display an award which was superseded or the new award, but once the recipient began displaying the new award, they were not allowed to display the old one. I have no problem if others choose to display the older awards. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for being late to the discussion, but I just noticed that this change was implemented, and I dislike it. The old color scheme looked better and differentiated each level, in addition to looking like "real" ribbons and not some computer-generated shapes that we now have. It would be nice if the templates for the awards included parameters that allows for the choice between the new and old designs, maybe with the new designs as the default. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

regarding the level requirements[edit]

It seems to me that the longer you spend on this site, the less you actually care about getting your next service award. Additionally, you get more and more likely to meet the requirements in time (fairly obviously), but not in edits. (Compare my 2011 posts here with my current 2016 post here!) I don't particularly mind the requirements up to 10 years, and anyway those would be impossible to change now. But I think it would be a little more fitting if the ending 10-12-14-16 became something like 10-12-15-20, going up more exponentially than linearly. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the current system. I enjoy updating my badge once a year (from now on every other year)... I really don't like the idea of an escalation of the timetable — nor should there be anything beyond Vanguard Editor @ 16 years. That's our top black belt... Carrite (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The project is about to become 16 years old. In 34 years it will be 50 years old, somehow I doubt I will still be around to see that, but many of our younger editors will. By the end of the century there could be long service awards for people who have been here from adolescence until long after what now would be considered retirement age. I think we should be designing a system that works for the foreseeable future. Other volunteer organisations that start young but last a lifetime have a service award program that reflects that, we should too. As for edit count, faster processing and multi edit tools such as twinkle mean that the edits per hour figure is likely up a lot since the early days and may go up further. Perhaps at some point we should be creating special awards - has edited in 1,000 different weeks or has edited on 10,000 different days. ϢereSpielChequers 19:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Double sharp, Carrite, Lou Sander, and WereSpielChequers: -- Generally agree with user:WereSpielChequers, but after 16 years, the next award shouldn't occur until 20 years, then 25, then 35 and finally for 50 years, for the fortunate soul that remains active for that long. After 16 years, making an award for every two or three extra years of service would be redundant and sort of frivolous. Also, edits created by bot usage should not be counted. Without mentioning names, I have seen cases were a bot user racks up 100's of edits inside the space of 10 minutes, day after day, and then has the audacity to give him or her self an award for '100,000+ edits'. That demeans the meaning of the edit count, as many editors write a number of sentences for one of their edits. This may be getting on to a different topic, but bots should be made so that a user gets one edit for one bot session. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I doubt many bot users count their bot edits towards awards. If someone is running a bot they should do so on a separate bot account. But semi automation is common, with twinkle, starting an AFD is one action that generates three edits. I don't use catalot on wikipedia, but I use it on commons and one batch can easily involve over 200 edits in a very short space of time, of course all 200 files have to be looked at and ticked or otherwise before you start that catalot recategorisation, and no one but the editor knows how much work went into that. So historically edit count is a non serious metric, of far less importance than things like Featured content. Also combining it with tenure filters out the people who learn AWB or Huggle and do tens of thousands of edits in a few months. ϢereSpielChequers 21:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
It's been a while, but I can think of one bot user who not only boasted an incredibly high number of edits, but also boasted about being one of the most active users. It trivializes Wikipedia. Yes, writing articles, featured or otherwise, and time spent (i.e.# of years) say much more about an editor's activity than number of edits. Don't want to sound disparaging about editors who do a lot of maintenance and use the various automated tools to do it with. Lord knows we need these people. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps. But was their bot use from their main account or their bot account? As for Featured content, that has its own rewards and kudos, and on Wikipedia today an FA star has more kudos than a million edits. ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Need for an article count based Service Award[edit]

It takes me about two hours to write an article. And I write the entire article in the main space at one go. After I publish the article, I mostly do only minor changes to the article. In my case, I have made about 21 articles but still have less than 1000 edits. To put that into perspective, user Godsy, who recently applied to become an administrator has around 15000 edits but has created only around 7 articles. Source. Is it not unfair to editors who research and make new articles to not have any recognition to show for their mettle. I would therefore like to make a suggestion for a new class of service awards which recognises article creators (articles should not be stubs to be counted). Jupitus Smart 08:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist because of a discussion above. I was quite shocked to arrive here and find myself mentioned.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No offence intended. I just happened to see your proposal for adminship and remembered the numbers. 15000 edits is a good number and I am sure you must have made Wikipedia a better place with that. I only wanted to show that article creation can also be counted as a valid metric of contribution. Since you are here, why don't you weigh in with your opinion. Jupitus Smart 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: The closest thing is the awards for Did You Know nominations, which features newly created or expanded articles on the Main Page. There's a list of awards at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs#See also. It's a pretty lightweight process; articles only need to be 1500 characters (two or three paragraphs) and there's a basic review against core policies. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The active repository of article statistics, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count, is, without a doubt, a most valued resource for such details. While those of us who spend time examining such matters are grateful for its existence in any form, in its present state, however, it does have have certain imperfections. The "Non-redirects" column, which can be sorted from the highest to the lowest number, combines talk page creation with article creation, thus making it seem that those with high numbers for non-redirect creation (the highest number, as of this writing, is 96,761) have created that number of articles, without indicating how many of those are actually talk pages, most of which take as little time to create as redirects.
An even more inconvenient technical imperfection restricts each sorting to 1000 entries, thus preventing users from sorting 1–10,000, but only 1–1000, 1001–2000, 2001–3000, etc. Moreover, since the default sorting of all 10,000 user names is by the combined total number of non-redirects and redirects, even if one were to sort each of the ten separate columns by the highest number of non-redirects, those columns would not be directly comparable to each other because the sole sorting which unites them is the "Total" column. As an example, #20 on the list, Sethbot, has created 1 non-redirect and 40,901 redirects, for a total of 40,902, while #9988 on the list, Sjeans, has created 127 non-redirects and 1 redirect, for a total of 128 and yet Sethboth and Sjeans cannot be directly compared with each other, other than in the total number of 40,902 for Sethbot and 128 for Sjeans, because Sethbot is in the 1-1000 column and Sjeans is in the separately sorted 9001–10,000 column. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a whole menagerie of awards for content contributors, ranging from DYK to Featured Articles. Those awards include the highest ones available on this site. I'm not convinced we need more, and especially not one unrelated to quality assessment. ϢereSpielChequers 09:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. These awards are, after all, made to oneself. Personally, I've started about 400 articles. To me, this is a greater source of pride/distinction/self-aggrandizement than the number of edits I've made. After all, correcting 1,000 typos = 1,000 edits, while creating 1 new article on something or somebody important = 1 edit (unless you save your work frequently on the way to creating it). Creating an article, IMHO, almost always increases the value of the encyclopedia. Making an edit may, or may not, do that. The award as I envision it should be based on the Non-redirects totals HERE. It would be pretty hard to inflate one's own numbers, except by lying about it. Lou Sander (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not sure about that. There are many high-article count editors who created articles that are one or two-sentence stubs. These stubs are often unreferenced. On the other hand, there are many low-article count editors who created long articles. This award would tend to favour the prolific stub creators. Dr. K. 16:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but it would be better than nothing. I'd suggest the awards be for 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, then take it as high as you'd like, bearing in mind that some folks create hundreds of stubs. The first award would acknowledge a beginning article creator. The others would represent meaningful progressions. Maybe the first one should be 5, since many new editors create a user page and a talk page. Also maybe the wizards who do the article count processes could introduce a screen of some sort to differentiate between tiny stubs and more substantial articles. Lou Sander (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
All this is reasonable. Any award scheme is going to be either 1) fairly simple, but very imperfect and "unfair", or 2) very complicated, but only somewhat imperfect and "unfair"... At any rate, this'd be fine, but it ought to be separate from this page, which is mature. Also, I think awards for "X articles create" (which again, why not? sounds great) maybe need not be tied into service time. But that'd be up to the person(s) creating the award system. Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thinking more about this, even those who create large numbers of stubs are helping build the encyclopedia. Those stubs can, and often do IMHO, grow over time. Also, there might be some sort of barnstar(s) or similar awards, specific to creating articles. The idea would be to have others look over your articles to evaluate them. 100 unreferenced stubs is quite a bit different from 100 longer and fully referenced articles. There could be a guideline for awarding the barnstars (or whatever), hopefully to help differentiate the two types of article. I'm interested enough in this to start a page, or a project, or whatever is the best way to propose it and get opinions. I've not done such before, but I'll look into it. Ideas and help from folks with experience will be appreciated. Lou Sander (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm always in favor of finding new ways to recognize editors. And there are plenty of good pushes for article creation either being run now, or being worked on for the near future. This is exactly the sort of thing that could help to foster some goodwill. A thought: maybe a special award geared towards new editors who create articles for edit-a-thons? We might try that out to see if it can help some with editor retention. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: There is the challenge of creating stubs. I have created 341 articles, some are solid researched and many are stubs. I've been chastised for creating stubs, even though the individuals meet notoriety requirements and I provided intro wording and a solid reference, they are even mentioned on other pages. But creating an article that gets accepted, or withstands the test of time, is a noteworthy result. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
"Stub" is a social construct. :-) Sometimes a very short article says all there needs to be said about its subject. People can mark it as a stub, but it's sometimes very hard to say any more. Lou Sander (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
What about disambiguation pages though? I personally don't count them for my own records. There's no automatic way to distinguish them from regular pages that I know of, though. Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting question. I don't keep track of them, either, but I suppose I've created a few. I DO keep careful track of the articles I've started, and my total tracks pretty closely with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count. Lou Sander (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Burba Level 3 Typo[edit]

I found a typo on the Template:Burba lv3 Ribbon where it said lv 3 instead of lvl 3. I personally thought "lvl" sounded correct, and as such I changed it to where it said lvl instead of just lv. If anyone feels like this is wrong, contact me explaining why. You could be right, where as I'm wrong. -The Phase Master 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Phase Master: All the other templates use the abbreviation "lv" in the hover text. Thank you for your initiative, but I'm going to change it back for consistency. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 22:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't time of service reflect actual time of service?[edit]

In theory, an editor could make 100,000 edits over three or four years, retire, and continue to rack up levels without continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia in any meaningful way. Shouldn't the years of service component include some mechanism for excluding excessive periods of time (say, a year or more) during which an editor is inactive? bd2412 T 02:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not in my book. It's simple, it works. Its all on the honor system, so if a person doesn't want to count a gap they don't have to. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

alignment within userbox (Userboxtop)[edit]

I've got my little ribbon at the top of my right-aligned userbox (using Template:Userboxtop) but I'd love to center-align the ribbon. Is there any way to do that please? Any help much appreciated. --Philologia (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I myself don't know much about that... maybe somebody else will. But if you go to the template, end edit source, you will see that the file is [[File:Journeyman Editor lv3.svg|120px]]. You can put that on your page instead of the template, and maybe play with that... but I don't know how. Herostratus (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Philologia Sæculārēs and Herostratus: I'm just a little late to this conversation, but {{Service awards}} has an alignment parameter, so you can set |align=center. I use it in my userbox. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 15:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It is time[edit]

The project was founded in 2001, so IMO it is not too early to think about adding levels to for 18 and 20 years of service.

I believe at one time we did go to 20 years, but people thought it was silly to have awards that no person could yet achieve. I don't think it's silly. But at any rate the 18 year level at least we could reasonably address soon. The main problem is coming up with a new metal, and the hardest task a new graphic. Also the names. Herostratus (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The main problem is coming up with a new metal, and the hardest task a new graphic. Also the names. So the whole thing, then. ;)
I think this is a good idea. While we are at it, we should probably plan for a few more future awards (e.g. 25 and 30 years). The problem with waiting to design an award until someone is eligible for the award is that soon you are scrambling to design said award. At least we have a couple years before anyone is eligible for an 18 year award. I'm willing to lend a hand. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 22:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the names are easy, just a matter of coming up with something. The metals or gems are a matter of research, there either are or aren't more more entries in the Periodic Table of Imaginary Elements, and research ought to be able to figure that out. The images take actual skill (I made most of the images for the lower levels, but they are poor compared to the upper levels, and I'm not up that skill level).
I know that in the past editors have been against the the idea of having awards that are far beyond what a current person could achieve. I don't think that we should make the gaps between levels more than two years; two years is a long time. So 16-18-20-22-24... is my thought. That's a lot of elements. Maybe just continue with the unobtainium... 18-20-25-30.... it would be easier but five years is a loooong time, so I dunno... Herostratus (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Lord Gom with ring[edit]

Frivolous indeed, but why not? Should the award for Lord Gom read "its ancient access keys (with ring)"? Wikiain (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

? Herostratus (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
A keyring, of gomium and in diameter one part of a fubit. Wikiain (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Özür dilerim, bahsettiğiniz önemi anlamıyorum. Bununla birlikte, kırmızı bir kalem kutusu var. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Do lighten up. Wikiain (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Two proposals: a Million Edits Award, and service awards for admins.[edit]

1. Can we get a Million Edits Award? Because I just earned one last month.

2. Also, how about a set of service awards for administrators? I'd think six or eight or ten years as an administrator, with all the extra stress that brings, is worthy of some recognition. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe when you reach a million, your counter should reset to zero, just like the odomoters on cars. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I am sure that there is at least a theoretical upper bound to the number of edits that Wikipedia software can count and report. bd2412 T 13:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"One... million... edits?" (said in best Dr. Evil voice). Write back when you have one billion edits.
FWIW, when these awards were first proposed, it was mooted to make admins not eligible, because they already have gone down the admin path. It's kind of like choosing College or Career in the Game of Life. One or the other. But of course that's not a good idea and was shot down. Herostratus (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If someone has made a million edits from writing, making citations, participating in Talk page/Article improvement, doing clean up, looking out for vandalism, etc, i.e.a manual and cognitive effort, then I would congratulate such an editor for his or her effort. However, if someone has 'made' a million edits simply by operating a bot every day, racking up 100's, perhaps 1000's of edits every time they run a (pre-set) bot with a click or two, the effort is certainly appreciated, but I wouldn't toot my horn too loud, expecting an award for a "million edits". It's taken me more than ten years to make 60,000 edits, and I edit almost every day. I would suspect most editors who have a million edits got most of them running a bot (e.g.100's-1000's inside a minute or two). If they come up with a 'million edit' award, there should be a stipulation that edits made by a bot don't count, as it would demean the idea of an edit count for the greater majority of editors who make them the 'not-so-easy' way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
That's one way to look at it. Another way is, an edit is an edit. If one editor writes a bot that upgrades 10,000 instances of http to https, and another editor makes 1,000 edits doing this by hand, is not each edit of equal value? Herostratus (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Insert: Hardly. Many edits involve adding information, citations, etc, whereas the edits made by bots most often involve the fixing of a link, or adding m-dashes, etc, and are not nearly of 'equal value' to the readers, whom are our primary concern. Clicking on a pre-set bot is one action, resulting in a minor change or tweak to numerous different pages. There are cases where I have renamed an image file, resulting in a change to a dozen articles. Is the name change counted as one edit, or twelve? Counting these single actions as more than one "edit" is misleading in terms of receiving an award, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
In theory, an editor could create a page in their own userspace and program an assisted editing program to add a space, then delete a space, then add a space, then delete a space, etc., etc., until the editor hits a million edits. As a practical matter, however, assisted edits are edits that are of value to the encyclopedia. I have used assisted editing to fix countless disambiguation links (really the only way to address large numbers of them) and to create entire classes of decent articles. bd2412 T 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
All edits have 'some' value, but it's sort of disingenuous to receive an award for '1000 edits', when all one has done is click on a bot, once. This is why service awards have a time factor requirement. Oh well. Don't want to sound like I don't appreciate the efforts made by bot operators. Cheers -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you seriously underestimate the work that goes into making a bot that can correctly make a thousand useful edits with the click of a button. In any case, I have a bot account for bot edits (User:BD2412bot). My million edits were hand-made, with an assist from AWB. In short, even if all I did was to click a button, I would have had to click the button a million times. bd2412 T 21:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with the need for a million edit award (excluding bot accounts), especially as a sixth editor is likely to finish their first million edits in the next month or two. ϢereSpielChequers 00:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Incremental service awards, Registered Editor level 4[edit]

Shouldn't the time requirement be 23 days instead of 18 days? 123957a (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That would make the progression more linear. I've made the change. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Background of stars (medals)[edit]

Upto vetran editors, it is good. But after that, they look like they are abandoned, disowned, forgotten, and placed (thrown) somewhere dingy, dark, dusty place. The background is too dark. Can/should we make it bright? What do you think Herostratus? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think only the "Veteran Editor" (I-IV) are really poor. Master Editor and above, they're OK. And below Veteran Editor is fine.
I made the Veteran Editor files more than ten years ago and long ago lost the original layered master file (and additionally my Photoshop was stolen bu a blackguard long ago although I have Gimp now), but anyway I'm not really doing graphics much anymore so for those reasons I, the original file creator, am not really up to the job. (The Master Editor and above graphics were made by somebody else). But if anybody wants to do a Photoshop/Gimp job on them for practice, fun, or to the aid the project, yes that'd be great, at least for the Master Editor files. (In fact the foregrounds could be better too). Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Lord Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia QR code?[edit]

Is the image for Lord Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia supposed to be a valid QR code? I can't decode it. Or do you only get the ability to decode it once you reach that level? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It is a valid QR code, but it is slightly squeezed horizontally (or stretched vertically) so your QR code reader might not be able to interpret it. If I remember correctly, it brings you to the Main Page. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 15:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)