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)

We need a moratorium on changing the requirements[edit]

The requirements (in time or edits) keep randomly changing, and have been for years. Just leave it alone. The recent massive expansion at Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons) has introduced new date requirements that directly contradict those of Wikipedia:Service awards in some places, which is going to give some users the impression that others are falsifying their "editing credentials". Please fix this (by using the more stable requirements in the main page), and just let this lie as it is and quit monkeying around with it. After these requirements are normalized, any further changes should be done by RfC, or reverted, the same way unilateral additions to the main barnstars pages are reverted if they don't have consensus.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this recent addition by AlexTheWhovian should be rolled back. The WP:Incremental service awards are intended for newer editors, not veterans who typically don't need this kind of goal. After rolling back, I agree that a moratorium is needed. However, the final/top service award has always been out of reach for 99.99999% of contributors, made so by adding new levels underneath it. At some point, the out-of-reach service award should be shelved, as it is not used by any who actually deserve it. Instead, it's used by by people such as this one, as a joke. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Let it be. If they want to use them, they want to. If they don't, they don't. I put a lot of hard work into making these, and I feel that they can be used. And if you see a mistake which apparently contradicts the main service awards, perhaps you should fix it instead of believing you own this page and have the right to roll it back. :) Alex|The|Whovian 02:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, except multiple editors are objecting to what you've done without WP:Consensus and the problems introduced thereby. You should read that page and WP:OWN and revise your statement.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes should be rolled back. It looks like a blatant attempt to create a parallel scheme with its own time levels. Mootros (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If it's a parallel scheme with its own time levels, then the entire thing should be removed, since what I've given i merely an expansion, not a new system. There's no such need for "consensus" when expanding the Wiki. If you see a problem, you should fix it, not remove it - removing valid edits can and will be considered disruptive. Each level of edits and each level of time served is in exact quarters of the increments between the main awards, just as the original five increments were. If the valid increments I've implemented have to be removed, I'm afraid I'll be faced with the issue of requesting a deletion of the entire incremental system, based entirely and fully upon the "arguments" you've presented here, as they apply exactly the same. Alex|The|Whovian 07:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The fix in this instance is the rolling back of your work. You did something that was never needed, so it doesn't really matter here how hard you worked on it. If you nominate the awards system for deletion you will be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Is that what you want to do? Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait a sec... I would support your nomination for deletion of the incremental service awards; in my above post I assumed you meant the main service awards. I don't think the incremental awards are useful enough to keep. Binksternet (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"requesting a deletion of the entire incremental system". Alex|The|Whovian 07:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian, on this page a "Novice editor" needs 200 edits and 1 month. On the page that you worked on, it looks like the same "Novice editor" needs 400 edits and 1 month 15 days. Its rather confusing to call these sublevels levels. Either way, you should establish consensus that the "incrementals" should go up all the way. You have have altered the main idea that these incremental awards were merely to encourage new editors. You have unilaterally altered a long standing agreement of the community not to have a more fine-grading scheme---and with it more (sub)levels. If I remember correctly, the "incremental awards" were some sort of compromise over exactly the question whether to have a finer grading or not. Please revert and try to establish consensus. Mootros (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny thing - I didn't change the Novice editor. You can see it's exactly the same as the old versions here for the main rewards page, and here for the incremental rewards page. Alex|The|Whovian 07:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you didn't but it looks like it. The main point is that there is no consensus of going up even further with these incremental awards that were in the first place controversial. Mootros (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Colour me confused. It looks exactly the same as it did before I came along. (Because it is.) So, I'm not sure why you're bringing that up when it makes no sense? Alex|The|Whovian 08:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, but the main issues remains: there is no consensus of developing further the incremental awards that were controversial in the first place. Mootros (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If they were so controversial, why have they existed for over four years with nary a removal? And you still haven't concluded your reasons for the edit summary that it "aims to alter the time levels of Service Award". Alex|The|Whovian 08:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The "Incremental Award" page existed as a compromise out of a discussion to have a finer grading of the main award. I'm sorry to have summarised the issue incorrectly. Forgive me! We appreciate your effort and hope you will stay with us in the future editing articles on this encyclopaedia. All the best, Mootros (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All of this looks like WP:BRD. AlexTheWhovian, you made a bold edit, then it was reverted. Instead of immediately restoring it and crying "disruption," it should be discussed to completion. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't objecting to there being sublevels, but rather to mismatches in the requirements. A proper sublevel structure would look like this:
  1. Title Foo requires A time, B edits
    1. Title Foo Sub1 requires A × 1.25 time, B × 1.25 edits
    2. Title Foo Sub2 requires A × 1.5 time, B × 1.5 edits
    3. Title Foo Sub3 requires A × 1.75 time, B × 1.75 edits
  2. Title Baz requires C time, D edits
    1. Title Baz Sub1 requires C × 1.25 time, D × 1.25 edits
[Edited to reflect correction below.] With no overlap of sublevels of one title with any other level or sublevel, and no conflict between the numbers. I don't really think that adding sublevels for every level is useful; it's not necessarily bad, but it seems pointless because the levels are for noob encouragement, not experienced editors' preening and editcountitis. What is bad is getting the numbers all bollixed up and overlapping/conflicting, or having titles and sublevels with conflicting names.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there's only three sublevels per reward. So it should be:
  1. Title Foo: X time, Y edits
    1. Title Foo Sub1 : X × 1.25 time, Y × 1.25 edits
    2. Title Foo Sub2 : X × 1.50 time, Y × 1.50 edits
    3. Title Foo Sub3 : X × 1.75 time, Y × 1.75 edits
  2. Title Baz: X × 2 time, Y × 2 edits
Alex|The|Whovian 07:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay (and sorry, I just changed the formatting to use different variables and stuff; edit conflict!) I'll edit the original table to reflect the correction.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Please see here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Incremental_service_awards_(Ribbons)

Thank you for your input. Mootros (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: So, you're going to close the discussion but not do anything about the now-useless templates or images? Great job! Alex|The|Whovian 05:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: I didn't set about deleting them yesterday because (a) it looks like a fair bit of work understanding what needs to be done, and it was quite late where live, and (b) I thought I should see whether you want to do the "D" bit of WP:BRD and start a discussion here to see whether you can get consensus to restore them. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We also have Barnstars[edit]

How about creating some new medals, ribbons, etc., for editors who have passed, say, 500,000 and 1,000,000 edits respectively? With the help of automating tools, any fool can "earn" the awards we've got now, but only four people have passed a million edits, and IMO deserve to be recognized as having done so. David Cannon (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Service Award is not meant for bots. Also people who run and maintain bots are usually no fools, but tend to contribute to this project in a meaningful way. If you want to honour them --or anyone else-- just go to their page and give them a Barnstar or two. Mootros (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't call them fools. I use automating tools like AWB myself. But it certainly doesn't put me in the league of people like User:Koavf. Methinks we need some specific way to recognize users like him. David Cannon (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

TfD for service award templates[edit]

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Service award templates. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Awards You're Not Entitled To[edit]

So, I have a question. Is there a penalty for displaying an award on your page you're not entitled to? Is there someone who goes around and checks? I'm just curious, is all. I Feel Tired (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No. It is strictly on the honor system. One would hope the number of dishonorable people is quite small, but there will always be some. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
There is one, but it's unofficial: other Wikipedians won't take you seriously. You may find your edits reverted more often or questioned more closely, & your comments on articles & in discussion areas like the Village Pump & WP:AN ignored. At least that's what I assume: people who display an award that she/he is clearly not entitled to rarely make more than a handful of edits, & are gone months before anyone notices what she/he has done, so it's always been more of a hypothetical situation than a serious problem. -- llywrch (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. If someone lies about what they've done on here,I can see why people would take them less seriously. Plus, it's trivially easy to find out if someone's faking something like that, so it's not like they'd really be able to fool anyone anyway. Anyway, thanks for the answers guys! I Feel Tired (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that service awards have a connection to editcountitis and the fact that there is no accepted way of evaluating edits to determine if some edits are superior to others, leads some editors to make fun of them by adding inflated awards to their userpages as a form of humour. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That's one reason that the service awards also require years of service. No matter how bad the editcountitis is, the editor still has to have been around 5+ years for the higher awards. There are also humorous versions of each award for editors who want to show their service while not taking the rewards all that seriously. If the rewards keep more editors around longer, then that is very likely all to the good. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well said. I agree completely. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Very important disrespect[edit]

I've noticed a very significant lack of respect in these titles: the title "Lord Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia". As any fule kno, the higher aristocrats absolutely insist on their "The" (with CAPITAL "T"). For example, long ago a newspaper referred to "Princess Margaret"; they promptly received a letter, not from the princess of course but a minion, pointing out in offended terms that the correct usage was "The Princess Margaret". Consequently we should rectify the reference throughout to "The Lord Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia". I haven't done this myself in case it might break something somewhere else (not there are many Lord Goms). Perhaps someone who knows if these terms can safely be changed will do this, if deemed acceptable? Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's not only one Lord Gom, so calling someone The Lord Gom seems inaccurate. Achowat (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed so: there aren't any. Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There are already a couple of hundred editors who meet the edit count for this, but with the pedia only fifteen years old it will be at least a year before we start getting Lord Goms. I think we can leave it to their Lordships to declare fine details of the suitable mode of address, but there are two issues we should think about, firstly can we make this gender neutral? Second a volunteer service award system needs to cater for volunteers who put in long service; Judging from other more established organisations that should include 25 and 50 year awards. We have a few years before such are needed, but no harm in designing them in now. ϢereSpielChequers 04:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion to Quality Award[edit]

I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How to count edits?[edit]

Can't find where or how my current number of edits is tallied. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Found a couple of offline ways, but not a live counter that I can add to my user page... still need help please. DPdH (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Within Wiki: visit your userpage, go to "Preferences" (up right, between "Sandbox" and "Beta"), click and see ("Basic information") the number of edits you made in that particular language version of Wikipedia. If you want to see the number of all edits in all language versions + Commons + Wikidata + etc.: click on (last line of "Basic information") Global account: View global account info. All well hidden, but it's there. Good luck. Vysotsky (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Out of idle curiosity[edit]

Instead of doing something useful, I decided to investigate an idle question I had: just how many people currently qualify for the highest service award, Grandmaster Editor First-Class? If one has the time, one can figure it out: at the moment I write this, 295 editors have made at least 114,000 edits, so all one would need to do is to find out how many of these folks have been editing 14 years or more.

After a couple of hours, having first gone thru the top 50 on the list (which allowed me to identify 5 Grandmaster Editors, 16 Master Editor IVs, 16 Master Editor IIIs, & several lesser awards), I skipped down to look for usernames in this group of 295 whom I remember being active when I joined in 2002. Doing that, I was able to identify a total of two editors who could correctly & properly add that award to their page. And neither one has bothered to do so. (Out of respect for their privacy, I won't mention their names here.)

FWIW, the only person who has the Grandmaster Editor First-Class template on his page claims to have been editing Wikipedia for over 15 years. A quick investigation revealed said person has a whopping 352 edits to his credit.

Not sure what my investigation shows. I did notice that while a lot of people will boast on their user page how many edits they've made, far, far fewer mention how long they've been on Wikipedia. And most of those folks simply indicate they've been here "over 10 years". Like me. -- llywrch (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)