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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ϢereSpielChequers06:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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•Contribs00:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. ϢereSpielChequers06:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ϢereSpielChequers11:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. ϢereSpielChequers15:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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•Contribs00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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)[reply]
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 test13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). ≈ Chamaltalk¤14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SoWhy22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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•Contribs02:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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•Contribs23:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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. ϢereSpielChequers15:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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•Contribs00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) ➪➪[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
← 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)[reply]
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) ➪➪[reply]
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)[reply]
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•Contribs07:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← 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)[reply]
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 ?!
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)[reply]
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.
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•Contribs06:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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•Contribs17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Marx01Tell me about it03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 StrategyϢereSpielChequers23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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'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.praxislogos17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.praxislogos18:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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.praxislogos00:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renovation proposal
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Wikipedia Service Awards have become cluttered as random new awards have been added piecemeal to accommodate higher edit counts and terms. Random new metallic substances have been added in haphazard attempts to trump the previous metal—creating such peculiar awards as plutonium, nobelium, and meitnerium. New adjectives keep getting added—such as "Ultimate", which is currently given to users with 75,000+ edits, even though there are many editors with many times this number edits. The original custom of nonsense words like "Tutnum" has been replaced by the (equally interesting but) inconsistent use of words like "Emendator" and "Sage". I have created a proposal for a renovation of this page.
Some notes about the proposal before you look at it:
There are no changes to awards below Veteran Editor IV. I have included all of these simply to give the full effect.
The awards "Master Editor" and higher have new requirements, which means that if this proposal is approved, their transclusions will need to be changed for accuracy. This will not be difficult, however, since a limited number of users transclude the higher level templates.
The three highest awards are not yet available because of the years of service required. However, they will be available in the near future.
I chose these years because they seem like very natural lengths to choose. Hopefully their inclusion now will preempt the slapdash additions that have beset this page.
Though the future may well hold hundreds of years for Wikipedia, 15 years seems like a good place to stop. Anyone who has been with Wikipedia more than 15 years and who has made over 1,000,000 edits does not need a service award to know they're doing something special.
In reality, there are only two metals worth more than gold: rhodium and platinum. In this proposal, the award medals have been changed in accordance with this. The three highest awards are made from metals/minerals taken from classical and postclassical mythology.
To clear up the imbalance of the succession: Veteran Editor I → II → III → IV → Senior Editor → Master Editor I → II, I have created a new contracting gradation: Veteran Editor I → II → III → IV → Senior Editor I → II → III → Master Editor I → II.
The only change to Veteran Editor IV is the "humorous name" (this was changed to conform with its category). Major changes begin at "Senior Editor".
If this proposal is approved, the red links will of course be converted into actual templates.
The linked page below is NOT a functioning example—that is to say, none of the new templates have actually been created yet.
Comment - I like it for the most part, but the Soveriegn Editor award, the "Bufonite" Editor Star, bothers me a little. The coloring seems a little Amerocentric. For the same reason, I don't think that adding an eagle to the top of the higher awards was the best choice. I would support this proposal if the eagles are removed. Changing the color on the Soveriegn award would be nice, but isn't strictly necessary I think. In any case, though, this proposal is going to need much wider discussion than we've seen here thus far. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of red and blue was simply to be new colors—and I specifically made them cyan and cranberry to avoid the resemblance. Regardless, red and blue are the primary colors of at least 34 sovereign nations, including the English-speaking United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. As for the eagle, it is the Roman eagle. Do you have a specific suggestion as to what could replace the eagle? — the Man in Question(in question)18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you say the colors are different, I'll take your word for it. My monitor isn't all that great. As for replacing the eagle, I don't think it needs to be replaced, really, just removed. I think the awards would look better without them overall; besides what I still see as an Amerocentric connotation (Roman Eagles or not), they just look gaudy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So what about awards under the old system? I crossed over to Master Editor this year, & if the edit numbers are changed I'll have to give that award up. (No, I don't expect to accumulate 24,000 edits all that quickly.) And being grandfathered in implies that the recipient didn't honestly earn that award. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no grandfather clause. The awards are, at their heart, administered for an amount of edits and time, not for a title (as demonstrated by the shift of Burpa → Burba, plus of course common sense). So whether you call yourself a Master Editor (the way it is now) or a Senior Editor II (in the proposed system), you are still receiving the same award (the 4½ years and 35,000 edits award), just under a different name. It is well worth pointing out, however, that no one polices these awards. For example, none of the editors currently displaying the "Ultimate Editor" award have actually fulfilled the requirements. — the Man in Question(in question)21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisfied by this response, especially the part where "no one polices these awards". Only newbies & people who don't belong on Wikipedia would abuse the current system & award themselves titles they don't deserve. What I was hoping to see, instead, is that in the cases where a new definition of an award changes far enough that someone gets promoted, there is a way to explain the award is under the old definition, not the current one. I feel that would be the best way to go. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, llywrch, you raise a good point (there is some reshuffling) and offer a good solution (flagging “old definition” awards).
To elaborate what you’re saying llywrch – how about a (tongue-in-cheek, of course) grandfather/old school note/award/user-box stating “This user qualified under the old definitions, and doesn’t need no new-fangled criteria. What’ll you whippersnappers think of next?” Or more simply: “This user is an old school master.” (old schoolmaster – yuk, yuk).
Comment. I think this new proposal tries to move in too many directions at the same time. I also think the present structure has to be preserved without any changes and that the new awards structure should only add to the existing awards at the higher end. Overhauling the existing awards and then adding new awards at the higher end is too confusing, leads to conflicts with existing titles and does not offer continuity. A recipe for failure in my book. Dr.K.λogosπraxis18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional clarification. Preserving continuity, i.e. leaving the older structure alone while adding to it by expanding the higher end, makes this process evolutionary rather than revolutionary, while at the same time respecting tradition and existing usage. An evolutionary approach will minimise all kinds of conflicts and uncertainties. Renaming existing awards will inevitably lead to confusion and thus it is not recommended. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with renaming existing awards at the higher end. However, explaining that a given editor's award was evaluated under the old guidelines would minimize the conflicts & confusion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on how high that end is, I agree. If the award is so high that it is not populated then there is no harm in renaming it, if we must. But if the award is already used by several editors, renaming it is not a good idea, at least not without asking the affected editors. Also renaming an award without a solid reason makes the whole process even more arbitrary than it already is and messes up the awards process. It also sets a bad precedent because without strict review and renaming criteria these awards may potentially be renamed periodically to the point of (even more) irrelevance. Also, as in any other kind of award, tradition should be given its due recognition by preserving as much of the old naming structure as possible. Otherwise this will degenerate into the latest naming fad. Dr.K.λogosπraxis22:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree essentially completely with Dr.K.'s two posts above in this thread. I would add that four levels of Veteran and three levels of Senior seem a bit too parsed. After the first year or two, where there's a steep learning curve and the difference between three months and six months can be considerable, I'm not sure dividing categories by half-year makes much sense in terms of expected qualitative difference. A couple of the existing categories can be collapsed by retaining the name and having fewer levels attached to it, so as to retain the overall award name for people who have completed three or four or five years of service, without parsing for 3 /2, or 4 1/2. In other words, have two Veteran Editor levels rather than four. (Or have Veteran Editor and next-level-name Editor.)
I also very much support the idea of a policing bot that someone here has mentioned. And visually, I rather like the eye-blindingly shiny medals as opposed to the cloth-like medals with piled-up numbers of stars. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Replying to what The Man in Question asked me above, here are some things that bothers me and others that I´m in favour:
First, after the 100000 edits the last three awards seems to demand a LOT, also, the time requirements shouldn't be reduced in the existing ones
I don´t like the fact that some barnstars (such as the rothium and platinum) repeat themselves, it should be place only once certain barnstar, and the platimun should follow the golden one (looks better)
Some of the names are very weird or unfancy, specially the last three (the ones in parenthesis) so I wouldn´t be in favour
I like the fact that there are no more shining stars, but I dislike the eagles as someone also stated above
I think what you did to the images is very awesome (specially for the backgrounds and the necklace parts), but the userboxes seem still raw
I think 15 years are kind of pushing it, the max should be only 12
I have nothing against the last three minerals, but I think that the existing 13 awards plus one more instead of 17 is fair enough, preserving the element name (and leaving the last barnstar without a mineral, like "Ultima star" or something like that) but combining the title names just created like "Vanguard" and "Sovereign" (except for the ones in parenthesis, which have a doubtful elegance in my opinion)
There are three new types of necklace created wich should be used for the last three or four awards. About the books, there should be only 5 red books (books of knowledge), three yellow books and the green one as the last.
My suggestion for the requirements is leaving them as they are except for the last one, increasing it to 9½ years (and 75000 edits; and it´s not increasing it much since it was originally for 10 years) and a last one of 100,000 edits and 12 years of service. End.
Support & Comments – this is awesome, elegant, and hilarious. Full support. The improved consistency is welcome, the graphics and naming are awesome.
To the point that “one must preserve existing categories” – the existing system is uneven, as noted (only 1 senior rank, 2 master ranks; 24k → 40k → 50k edits; 5 years → 7 years → 8.5 years), and the top ranks affect only few people, who are all necessarily experienced editors, hence hopefully understanding.
The only significant change proposed is changing names of some ranks (retaining ranks), removing a rank at 40k, and reducing years required for some.
The removal of “Master” at 40k may prove most contentious, as noted above; this affects about 20–40 editors (links 1links 2links 3links 4)
Senior Editor at 25k would be slightly more consistent (so steps are 20k → 25k → 35k → 50k: 5k, 10k, 15k), which is a slight change from current behavior; perhaps this should be done, but grandfathered?
Also, Sovereign Editor at 200k would be smoother, so the steps are 100k → 200k → 500k → 1,000k (100k, 300k, 500k – nice quadratic) rather than 100k → 250k → 500k → 1,000k (150k, 250k, 500k).
The higher awards are presumably intentionally (approximately) quadratically distant, only achievable via bots or other programming assistance (or extraordinary dedication: 100 edits/day for 30 years ~= 1,000,000), and presumably to prevent higher awards; obviously one could do 18/20 years and 2,000,000 edits (making it exponential), etc., but that’s very speculative.
So this seems a very thoughtful, elegant, future-proof, and neigh definitive cleanup – thank you, MiQ!
Comment - The purpose of any "self serve" entity would seem to be to avoid having to divert excess resources to the dispensing of it. If people are going to have to agonize over what award they may display, it would seem to defeat the purpose of having an award "you give yourself." Should they use live edits (for normal editing) or total edits including deleted edits (for New Page Patrol and Anti-vandalism editors)? If you were an anonymous user before you registered, are your years of service counted from the time you started, or the time you were convinced to register? Should we then change the welcoming committee templates to read: "You don't have to register... but if you don't and then later change your mind, other Wikipedia editors might not want to count your anonymous edits in their discussions about the level of service you perform for Wikipedia... and might even accuse you of CHEATING (in this volunteer, community service activity). These are the kinds of issues I would like to see addressed BEFORE any revamping of the names of the awards, some of which won't be able to be claimed for a few years. If you could manage to do BOTH, I might be more motivated to "yay or nay." Cheers. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff)08:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant to the above proposal. I would say that edits performed before creating an account do not count, but I see no reason not to count deleted edits, and have never made such a distinction when awarding myself these medals. If you wish to debate this issue, then start a new thread. — the Man in Question(in question)08:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you aren't trying to revamp the award process, or the guidelines in "helping yourself" to one, or in people's understanding of them, but rather to only make them prettier, funnier or more consistent with metal from mythology? I guess I support your "facelift" and important mathematical equations then.....Support, with irony. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff)09:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, drop the time/year requirement altogether. Time alone does not give experience! But a person who edits day and night will gain lots of experience within a short time and should be awarded a service medal. Second, 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 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 • TALK14:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: To be frank, I think "service awards" are pretty irrelevant to the central reason we are here and that is building an encyclopedia. Yes I have some, but if the whole concept disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss them. What is much more important to me is the recognition of my contributions by fellow editors. – ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, UKexpat, very few Wikipedians get the recognition they deserve. (And I suspect most of those who do are either heavily into self-promotion -- or happen into a string of incredible luck.) The service awards are an attempt to compensate for this problem. And the fact they recognize years of participation is vital for that reason. -- llywrch (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They may be silly but in their own little universe they do sound amusing and well thought out. Plus they cannot be any sillier than the concept they promote. So that's one thing that really doesn't bother me in the least. In fact I find them cute. Dr.K.λogosπraxis19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not too thrilled about #2 above. If you want to make a new system, make it so the older titles remain in place but are simply deprecated. Revoking service awards from people because you moved the goalposts won't be well-received... –xenotalk19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given that more and more editors will start to enter the higher amounts and time requirements then it makes sense to lift the ceiling. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Important comment - Wether this proposal is aproved or not, I think we shoul start discussing the details. As I`ve seen in this conversation, some users alsosuggest or comment on certain details (giving support to the proposal or not), and I guess discussing the specific details is a good idea, to set everything. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 21:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only quip I have is that having a title with supreme in it as sixth in precedence and something with laureate as first is somewhat odd. The Wiktionary definition reads "At the greatest, most excellent, extreme, most superior, highest, or utmost." So I'd rework the titles a bit, if only so they make a little more sense. (I don't even remember what level I am, nor have I cared in a while, so what the hey? Support.) 21655ταλκ/01ҁ23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is Supreme Tutnum — i.e., the "greatest, most excellent, extreme, most superior, highest, or utmost Tutnum", not just the greatest anything. Laureate = "Worthy of the greatest honor or distinction". — the Man in Question(in question)23:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oho. Well, to me, it still seems a little odd. But duly noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21655 (talk • contribs)
Support but clarify: We should clarify (I can't find a guideline here) whether ALL namespace edits count or only Article edits. For me, I err on the side of caution, but in my case I am over 3-1/2 years, 24,000 some edits in total namespace but just barely 16,000 article edits, so I just upgraded to the veteran editor badge a few days ago,using the lower number, even though by the other count, I could be one level higher, and been there a couple months ago. Not that talk page edits don't sometimes help articles, but sometimes they are just chat, too, especially on user talk pages. Thoughts?? Montanabw(talk)23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not support Far too many comments to read over thoroughly. Perhaps that's a good thing! I loathe nonsense words. I say obliterate them entirely. I like metals. I liked it better when those metals included mithril. The superlative adjectives are pretty good. I had in fact been wondering about the encroaching Farmbrough problem. I support re-envisioning the system; I'm not convinced we have arrived at the final stage. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nonsense words have nothing to do with this proposal—nonsense words are already a part of the Service Awards. You don't have to participate in that aspect of them. Just stick with the medals for your own page. — the Man in Question(in question)01:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I generally like the proposed new system, except that I think there are too many levels. I would eliminate 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 years - or at least 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5. At the very least I'd eliminate 3.5 and 4.5. As an aside, I do not like the current two radioactive medals - I think the star should be easier to see. Bubba73(Who's attacking me now?), 02:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to your original comment, it's pretty nice as a mid-level user to be able to achieve new awards every half year. It draws you into the synch of making steady contributions to Wikipedia. By the time you've reach the upper awards, you are already in synch and do not require the incentive of awards to keep you motivated. — the Man in Question(in question)03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Even with that, I think the 3.5 and 4.5 can be eliminated (and the others in the sequence changed). Even with the large number of edits I do, it is going to take me a lot more than 5 years to get to the 50,000 level due to the rapidly-increasing number of edits required. But I'm not saying this for myself, because I don't edit to get these awards (and I doubt many people do). I haven't made the point well, but what I'm getting at is that if you just barely make one of those 6-month awards, you are unlikely to make the next one in 6 more months due to the rapid increase in the number of edits required. Bubba73(Who's attacking me now?), 03:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but what I would like to see established is a policy that editors are not allowed to display awards they are not entitled to. Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've always found these awards to be utterly charming, in a system that is otherwise often devoid of charm. I was so proud to earn the coffee ring and cigarette burn. Inconsistency, folks displaying them who aren't entitled, etc.? I don't really care. I cheated a little once or twice because I tend to have well over the required number of edits for the amount of years--for example I now have 4 years but over 50,000 edits. (That's double the required number of edits.) I'm not bitter, just sayin'. Let's keep it fun and be done with it. Katr67 (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General support but it seems illogical to have "ultimate editor" as the penultimate award. Better without the eagles too. A system that largely depends on number of edits, regardless of quality, should not be taken too seriously.--Charles (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that Ultimate should be last. I'm also bothered by the presence of "cigarette burns". Smoking is a stupid, filthy habit, and should not be considered a reflection of greatness in any way. But I won't begrudge others this delusion. :-) Urhixidur (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cigarette burns are already a part of the service awards, not unique to this proposal. If you want to argue for their removal, that can be done on another thread. I suggest waiting till after this proposal is closed, though, to avoid possible conflicting changes. Also, the use of "vanguard" as the last was because the word has a prestigious sound which (I think) ultimate lacks, and because vanguard means "the foremost or leading in a trend or movement", which seams extraordinarily appropriate. Certainly I would look forward to receiving the title "vanguard" more than the title "ultimate", which brings to mind things like ultimate frisbee. — the Man in Question(in question)20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And on the subject of definitions, Senior = "being in a position, rank, or grade above others of the same set or class", which would seemingly make it the highest. Yet I think it's fine where it is now. — the Man in Question(in question)01:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with J-curve edit count: Unless one starts using bot edits to do lots of minor fixes, there is no way to make these edit counts if you actually add content to articles, this will make a person do nothing but vandal patrol all day. At least me, I am already at the time but short on edit count, even though I am on wiki almost daily, have over 1000 articles on my watch list, and have been accused of being "phenomenally productive" (LOL!). I actually wish I had more time to add substantive content and spent less time on vandal patrol. In fact, when I look at my own edit count, my biggest monthly counts were about two years ago when I was briefly unemployed and had nothing else to do but to revise a whole bunch of articles on a given topic ...LOL! I haven't reached that level since, and in fact have had a fairly stable monthly count for the last year or so... So I suggest the edit counts stay roughly equal for each yearly level. I have no opinion on the year or half-year increments for experienced editors, but the half-year increments are definitely nice for the first three to five years. I'm at 3.5, I kind of want to get to that gold medal, so I guess I kind of like keeping half-year increments to year 5, but I could also live with waiting another few months for my gold medal... Montanabw(talk)21:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but one also shouldn't be encouraging excess editcountitis, what's the goal of a service award? Ever-increasing quality or quantity? Montanabw(talk)21:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the service awards have no goal, nor should they. They are what they are. Whether you rack up edits improving or disimproving Wikipedia, you still earn a service award, because either way, you've served time as an editor, and that's what this award is about. — the Man in Question(in question)22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- this gives the most experienced editors something to strive for. In regard to the appearances of the new images, I love them...the colors are very vivid and not so hard on the eyes as the previous two ultimate awards. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, the new medals are very bright; it would be possible to make them more real as the existing ones (from Novice to Experienced)? The texture used on the ribbon does not seem to cloth, is it a kind of leather or rubber? Describe please. Sincerely, I think these awards should be used until ten years of service. 15 years is not an exaggeration?--Cannibaloki00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few users above have expressed concern for other users who will no longer be eligible for an award they have already earned, suggesting a grandfather clause, etc. To clarify:
There are 42 users who display some form of the top three levels in the old system (the three levels that are subject to change)
10 of these users are displaying their awards without actually having completed the required number of edits
Of the remainder, 18 are eligible for higher awards than they currently display and thus too will not be affected by the change
Leaving 14 users who will actually be affected by the level change
Request - This proposal seems it will be aproved soon, I´ve seen through this long discussion several opinions and disagreements about the details or minor structure of this new award system, so my request is that we start discussing this before it become established with no further adjustments (minor ones I guess). - ☩Damërung☩. -- 08:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My only request would be that the "Roman Numeral" ranks be retitled (eg. the Master Editor II now being titled "Grand Master Editor") Rapier1 (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like this idea ("Grand Master", etc.). Romantic names like this belong under the Burba, et al., category, not under the Veteran, et al., category. I myself would not look forward to getting named "Grand Master" after having achieved the title "Master". — the Man in Question(in question)09:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we disagree on this one. That's fine. As long as both ideas are presented the community at large can decide which they would rather use. Personally, I certainly wouldn't look forward to being called a "Master II" after earning the title of "Master". So we're even ;-) Rapier1 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. Also, it's worth pointing out that if no discussion arises on the subject and this proposal gets implemented with the numerals, you can always start a new thread proposing the name changes you want. I'm guessing a lot of people don't feel like saying any more on this subject, considering how much there is to read through, but a new thread (after this one is closed) might generate a response. — the Man in Question(in question)02:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I think the idea is very good and I like what you have done a lot, but it also seems some of that is a bit much like 15 years and 1 million edits? Anyway, I don't really care one way or another, but I do think you did an excellent job there.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page has been viewed 1,186 times since this proposal was posted on December 30 (as of January 10). The full proposal page has been viewed 380 times since its creation on December 29 (as of January 10). Of the 43 users who have commented on the proposal, 31 have voted Support, 2 have voted Oppose, 3 have voted Neutral, and 7 have not voted. Some who have voted in support have nevertheless voiced concerns. These are summarized as follows:
(2 users) the Ultimate Editor award ought to be the highest level
(1 user) users who might otherwise be demoted ought to be able to keep their awards under a grandfather clause
(note that only 14 users will be affected by the change)
Concerns voiced by those who oppose the nomination are summarized as follows:
(2 users) there are too many levels
(1 user) the edit count is too high
(1 user) the time requirement is too long
(1 user) the old awards should remain unaltered
(1 user) the metals rhodium and platinum should not repeat
(1 user) the humorous names are too weird
Concerns voiced by users who did not vote are summarized as follows:
(2 users) users who might otherwise be demoted should be able to keep their awards under a grandfather clause
(note that only 14 users will be affected by the change)
(2 users) the old awards should remain unaltered
(2 user) the time requirement is too long
(1 user) the edit count is too high
(1 user) the increase in edit count should be linear
(1 user) there are too many Veteran, Senior, and Master levels
(note that only the number of Senior levels has been altered in this proposal)
(1 user) the Veteran, Senior, and Master levels should be renamed without numerals
(1 user) the images are too bright
Note 1: Comments which do not pertain to this proposal are not listed above.
If you would like to discuss details of this proposal pertaining to these topics or any other relevant issues, please do so below. Note that many users have expressed opinions contrary to those listed above.
Oppose Fifteen years from now, maybe. I don't think we should have these massive edit requirements. Quantity is not quality; a vandal could have 15,000 edits. Why don't we work on glorifying the awards for the users who don't obsess with editcountitis. --iBendiscuss/contribsHow's my driving?03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't any form of glorification. The point is just to work out the bugs that fill this page. And regardless of whether users with high edit counts deserve praise, they have high edit counts one way or another. This award is administered in recognition of that achievement, not as a form of commendation. — the Man in Question(in question)10:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but while 15 years are like... VERY much, 1,000,000 edits are kind of excessive, I mean, even 500,000 are quite massive. I know that some tools like Huggle can increase the speed of edit achievement, but in that case: quantity is not quality (quoting above). The last three barnstars are demanding a lot, so my proposal for the maximum is 12 years and 100,000 edits. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But like I say, Farmbrough, who has been on for 5.75 years, is already well over 600,000 edits—so by 2013 (12 years from 2001), he'll probably have surpassed a million and many more will have surpassed 500,000. The highest level is not meant to be achievable by ordinary Wikipedians. As the current highest award observes, the top is a medal of honor, reserved for the limited few who make it that far—though probably someday it won't be such a limited few. — the Man in Question(in question)22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. At what point does someone decide this proposal has been approved? It has been posted for two weeks with 91% approval out of 34 votes. The issues that some people have raised—such as the introduction of a grandfather clause—can be discussed in a new thread and need not impede the implementation of this renovation. — the Man in Question(in question)00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears no true consensus has been reached, unless the opposers don't mind surrendering to the supporters. But that's just my opinion. The GOOD part is that either outcome really is fairly trivial. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I posted the question…in the hopes that someone else might do something. But don't get me wrong—while this is my proposal, it's not like it's the world to me that it passes. I'm just kind of tired of sitting on it for two weeks. I think that most problems people have with this nomination can be discussed separately after this has been put into effect, and those that cannot (such as changing requirements) are too fundamental of changes to implement given the fact that 31 people have already voted in favor of this version, and given that they are what this proposal is about to begin with. — the Man in Question(in question)06:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I participated in such a vote (which actually regarded the possibility of several areas of Wikipedia adopting a very complex policy), I posted the results of the vote after a week or so of silence, and took appropriate action reflecting the vote a couple days later. However, since this isn't a policy, I see no need to wait any longer. Anyone who disagrees with the results has had plenty of opportunity by now to step forward. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can´t we just reduce a little the edit requirements? I still think 1000000 is extremely massive. Quantity must not be quality, and I agree that not much wikipedians will reach that far, but it doesn´t mean that only one or two could. Besides, many users do not edit daily or otherwise which can let us produce a huge number of edits over short periods of time. Some even retire. Oh, and the repeating barnstars are still bothering me... Just voicing me out loud. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! 4TC13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.
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:
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 Swarmtalk02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marx01Tell me about it03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Swarmtalk05:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. ϢereSpielChequers10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 • TALK14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.
This question has come up recently, and currently is allowed as there is no policy against it. Therefore I'd like to propose a new policy in relations to Service Awards:-
No editor shall display a Service Award to which they are not entitled.
If an editor is found to be displaying an award to which they are not entitled then the correct award is to be substituted and the editor warned. Further display of incorrect awards after warning may be dealt with by administrative action, including blocks.
Oppose - why not add a "quick count" wiki link in the caption of the award. It may be possible for a bot to check the awards, and leave a warning, but I do not think a block is indicated. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Keep it "frowned-upon" per OliverTwisted, with a bit of trout-slapping where appropriate. Reconsider proposition if things get out of hand. Keep Wikipedia friendly. User_talk:Happyland123 for example. Also, propose the Giant-liver-slap for more serious flaunts. Ewwww.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's true that no editor should be allowed to post an award to which they are entitled—the service awards are just as serious as the barnstars, and no one is allowed to give themself a barnstar (which would be the equivalent misdemeanor). However, I do not think this policy should be enforced. Leave it to the honor system, and transgressors can transgress as they will. — the Man in Question(in question)18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adding an unearned award amounts to adding deliberate factual error to Wikipedia. Should user pages not be factually accurate as far as can be verified?--Charles (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Blocks?! I really hope admins don't start spending their time blocking people for giving themselves worthless awards on their own user page. Such people aren't necessarily being disruptive to the actual project that Wikipedia is, and should not be punished for something so incredibly small and ineffectual. Awards are only meant to be a fun thing.--SwarmTalk22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going to stand with the Man in Question on this in regards to neutrality. But if a bot were created for such a purpose, instead of removing the award entirely, the bot could replace the award in question with the correct one (the highest one earned). Lost on Belmont (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really don't think doing this would improve the project in any way, and would only breed malcontent. I mean, taking an award from someone's user page because they're "not entitled to it" seems like it goes against the whole overall purpose of awards: "to promote Civility and WikiLove". This isn't even telling someone they can't give themselves a certain barnstar -- these awards are meant to be given to yourself. It's really not a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinging Swarm (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOppose I don't like the idea of blocking someone simply because they "lie on their resume", so to speak. Wikipedia is nothing more than a hobby for any of us, and all of us are volunteers. While nobody should claim to have what they haven't earned, such draconian tactics for something that is essentially worthless in Real Life(tm) seems a bit silly. Also, what about people such as myself that have edited annonymously or under another username? Not only is this unenforcible but I see no sense in trying to enforce it. Rapier1 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:CREEP and per that awards are supposed to be kind of a fun thing you award to yourself. If we start policing "fun things" and start blocking the transgressors, where's the fun in that? Dr.K.λogosπraxis05:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I really can´t bend to any of the two sides, both have strong reasons. Anyway, I think I give a weak support for the remover bot. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This site is already rapidly heading to out of control fascism. No need to give Nazi admin more reason to try to get people banned than they are already doing.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(strong) Support. People displaying awards to which they are not entitled are dishonest. Awards are things you receive from other people. Awards are not taken, let alone forged by, for example, making hundreds of edits one word at a time. And of course, if indeed these "awards" are "not to be taken seriously", then just get rid of them altogether. DVdm (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, come to think of it, an award you're supposed to give to yourself isn't an "award" at all. "Service badges" might be a better way to describe these.--SwarmTalk08:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. There are already far too many policies!!! More importantly, the service awards are not to be taken so seriously anyway (afterall the edit count is no measure of the quality of someone's contribution). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK15:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree too, awards are not to be taken seriously and strict guidelines as if it is some kind of military decoration is silly. Nobidy thinks anymore of editors who have awards, the real proof of a good editor is in their article work and understanding of the project. We are here to build an encyclopedia, awards, while very welcome as a friendly gesture of appreciation of anothers work are not this important.Starzynka (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – These awards are really just for fun; if someone does incorrectly put an award, an informal warning is all that is necessary. No blocks whatsoever. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM)21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In light of the above information, I do think some sort of correction is in order. Allowing known misinformation fosters a culture that wikipedia tolerates incorrect information. I would think there is some correlation between someone who incorrectly displays an award to which they are not entitled and the strenuousness with which that person checks the facts of their edits. —Ute in DC (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely unsubstantiated. More importantly, we don't hold user pages to the same standards as articles. People put anything and everything there that is unreferenced and (maybe) non-factual. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK15:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not unsubstantiated—just check for yourself. But I did not mean for the information to be taken as grounds for support. I was just giving the facts (and they are the facts, or at least were when I checked a few days ago). — the Man in Question(in question)16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - leave it alone. Editors can go around calling themself a swan if they want to, that doesn't mean the other ducks won't laugh at them. –xenotalk15:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everything above. Awards are meant to alleviate stress, not cause it. I don't really care if a bot automatically fixes displayed badges, but since that's not the subject of this proposal, Oppose, oppose, oppose. — the Man in Question(in question)15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)[reply]
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. –xenotalk14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good god, and who is going to audit the user contribs so they can display the correct shiny bauble? This is needlessly complex. –xenotalk16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SwarmTalk21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SwarmTalk22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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. SwarmTalk
Following the recent update, one of the section headers is currently showing one Tutnum title, while the userbox templates are showing a different title.
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)
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.λogosπraxis19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Average rate of edits necessary to meet the conditions of the award in the required time
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)[reply]
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). ϢereSpielChequers14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.λogosπraxis20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.λogosπraxis21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Every tool has its purpose. Using a robot makes for more edits but it is also labour intensive as one makes many edits in a short period of time, but that doesn't make editing less tiresome. It is actually a tedious and potentially tiring task but if one is interested in cleaning-up the 'pedia effectively one has to use the robots for maximum efficiency. As far as the editor who makes rapid small edits in order to advance in the ranks of editors, well there is no accounting for taste, but even then I think they are misled because IMO anyone who places high importance on the number of edits does not really understand that most editors don't really think that the number of edits is that important. Dr.K.λogosπraxis
Actually when I edit an article, to actually improve it and not to fight vandalism, I find the activity much more relaxing and enjoyable. Using the rapid-fire robotic tools is much more stressful and tiring because the concentration of edits per unit time is far higher than during manual edits. So robot operators may increase their edit count but at the same time they increase their stress levels. And this is, of course, without counting that the vandals often retaliate and their counter-attacks increase the vandal-fighter's stress levels even more. So if stress is to be counted as service to the 'pedia, then the robot operators perform as great a service as anyone here. Dr.K.λogosπraxis21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional example, patrolling new pages is even worse than fighting vandalism in terms of stress. Yes you duly increase your edits by using robot tools to tag so many articles for CSD or PROD. But at what expense? You get the article creators fighting back with hang-on tags. If you are human, you feel sorry for them, even though you know that the article has to be deleted. Then, sometimes you can make a mistake and tag for CSD an article that is notable or tag it under the wrong category. After that you get mostly friendly but often patronising warnings from sysops and other editors advising you about your mistake etc. This, of course, does not count the threatening enquiries of the article creators visiting your talk, not to mention accusations from fellow-editors that you are being bitey to newbies (you must remember the time when they created an undercover wikiproject, now defunct, to prove how bitey established editors are to newbies). New page patrollers must be the most stressed editors around. Now compare this to the editor who peacefully writes a well cited paragraph or creates a notable new article in peaceful surroundings. This guy looks like a slacker compared to the newpage patrollers and other robot operators, if stress is to be counted as service to the 'pedia. Dr.K.λogosπraxis22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it's hardly a perfect system. Perhaps there could be some sort of slop in the system - you can "trade" years for edits, or vice versa, at a fixed rate, but only so far, if you need to reach the next level. (Or lower the edit requirements. Or at least require fewer edits per year until the final three or so.) HereToHelp(talk to me)23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the system isn't anywhere close to perfect but I never seriously sat down to think about the various time of service/edit count combinations because I consider these awards mostly decorative and not substantive. Dr.K.λogosπraxis23:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 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)[reply]
,
,
- Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2009 (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)