On 2012-02-16, Wikipedia:Service awards was linked from Reddit, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Awards This page is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards

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

Sounds OK to me. I can't really visualize it, can you show an example? Or I'm willing to trust your judgement. Herostratus (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: I'll try to upload the images tonight. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: here is the transcluded table. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed updates to service award ribbons

°	Level name	Current images		Proposed image #1 (service stars)	Proposed image #2 (match small ribbons)
		Small Ribbon	Large Ribbon
1	Registered Editor			No change
2	Novice Editor			No change
3	Apprentice Editor			No change
4	Journeyman Editor			No change
5	Yeoman Editor			No change
6	Experienced Editor			No change
7	Veteran Editor			No change
8	Veteran Editor II
9	Veteran Editor III
10	Veteran Editor IV
11	Senior Editor
12	Senior Editor II
13	Senior Editor III
14	Master Editor
15	Master Editor II
16	Master Editor III
17	Master Editor IV
18	Grandmaster Editor
19	Grandmaster Editor First-Class
20	Vanguard Editor

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

Looks good. No objections. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a preference? I like the striped ribbons since they match the small ones. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it, we're 1) assuming the small ribbons are to stay as is, and 2) looking at two possible versions for the large ribbon. OK. Well, they're both good... the idea of matching the small ribbons is a virtue, but the other version is nice in a different way. Can't decide! Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Mootros: If you go to WP:RIBBONS, you will notice that the vast majority of small ribbons match the large ribbons. The stars I used follow the convention used by service stars where one silver star is used in lieu of five bronze stars, and the striped versions match the smaller ribbons. I think the ribbon designs for Senior Editor and above could be reworked. I will probably do that and re-upload new striped versions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to answer your question about the ship's wheels. Right now, I'm on my phone, and the three ribbons are literally indistinguishable; they are even hard to tell apart on a PC screen. The point of the ribbon is to easily tell what award is represented, so that is why I feel they need to be changed. Not many editors legitimately hold the title of Grandmaster or GM FC, and I don't think there are any legitimate Vanguards, so there won't be too many images being changed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, this is something from the US forces. I think that's the problem why it seems to make no sense. It's not widely known and there is no apparent link to Wikipedia. Why can we not have something more creative, rather than following something obscure as a uniformed US services?

Yes, I agree there is no point changing the wheels as almost no one legitimately uses them at the moment. Yes, in the long run we can make them more distinguishable. This could easily be done be having a silver wheel for the top level and possibly only two wheels for lower levels. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Veteran_Editor_Ribbon_2_wheels.png Mootros (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the use of the service stars is US-centric, which is part of the reason I prefer the stripes. I recall seeing ribbons with one, two, and three wheels somewhere, and I think those would certainly be distinguishable enough from each other for the top three levels. I can try to make smaller versions of those in lieu of the current striped ones, and I'll eventually make SVGs of all the ribbons. I'm considering different color schemes for the Veteran, Senior, and Master levels. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. This sounds great! To be honest I think the lower levels might needs some overhaul too. They look quite scruffy. I very much like the idea of different colours to denote groups. I think you could also combine two colours; the trick would be to have subtle difference/ i.e. shades of different colours for each levels that nonetheless are still clearly distinguishable. This would avoid a potential clash of colours and possible circus look ;-). I trust your judgement; from what you already designed its looks very neat. Cheers! Mootros (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll start working on them later, but I think converting the lower levels to SVG will do a lot to help them look cleaner, but given what has been discussed already, I may begin a larger overhaul. I'll be sure to post the results here before making changes to the service award templates and pages. There is no need to worry about a "circus look;" I have an interest in heraldry and vexillology, both of which also believe that simpler is usually better. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow, excellent work! I can see your approach certainly is elegance through a clear and simple design. Two minor points: The light blue for "Apprentice Editor" looks slightly out of place now. I think gold without any dot might be a more logical choice, which will also mirror the sequence between "Veteran Editor" and "Veteran Editor II". The second point, I think the different strip colours between "Veteran Editor II-IV" and the "Senior Editors" is back to front. I feel it might be better to have "silver" strips first and than the "gold" strips. This type of colour progression would then also mirror the sequence between the silver of the "Novice Editor" and gold above, as well as the silver stars and gold wheels. Apart from that almost perfect, IMHO! Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the changes in names. I suggested two simple name changes for the lower levels for better consistency. The was not welcomed by one editor. I am happy to have the names reviewed and altered, but I suggest to do this separately from the ribbon design. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice @Jkudlick! My final comment: To advance your concept of minimalism further, it might be worthwhile to check and possibly fine tune the key colours: Sliver, Gold, Purple. I think, if we have three basic colours (ignoring the red for the tildes), it might further improve the overall appearance and consistency. What I am saying is, you might want to try matching the reappearance of the colours: i.e. the gold of the Apprentice and Journeymen could reappear in the strips of Senior Editors. I think, this slightly darker tone of gold might give more elegance than the brighter yellow and of course links the different levels. Similar the silver of the dots could be identical to the silver of strips and stars, but it possibly already is. See what it looks like; it might make the difference to be top-notch. Cheers, Mootros (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the stripes on the Senior Editor levels and the ship's wheels on the GM/Vanguard levels darker to match the bronze gold of the lower levels (though I kind of like the brighter gold on the wheels). I also matched the silver of the Registered/Novice levels to the silver used at all other levels, and made the tildes and incremental stripes purple. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Yes, maybe revert to the brighter gold for the wheels; it might give a bit of extra contrast for the top levels. I like the purple tildes! Mootros (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I'll begin working on the smaller ribbons later. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed updates to service award ribbons

°	Level name	Current designs		Updated designs		Incremental awards
		Large Ribbon	Small Ribbon	Large Ribbon	Small Ribbon	Level 2	Level 3	Level4
1	Registered Editor
2	Novice Editor
3	Apprentice Editor
4	Journeyman Editor
5	Yeoman Editor
6	Experienced Editor					N/A
7	Veteran Editor					N/A
8	Veteran Editor II					N/A
9	Veteran Editor III					N/A
10	Veteran Editor IV					N/A
11	Senior Editor					N/A
12	Senior Editor II					N/A
13	Senior Editor III					N/A
14	Master Editor					N/A
15	Master Editor II					N/A
16	Master Editor III					N/A
17	Master Editor IV					N/A
18	Grandmaster Editor					N/A
19	Grandmaster Editor First-Class					N/A
20	Vanguard Editor					N/A

• I'll adjust the sizes of the SVGs later tonight - I had read that 218x60 was optimal for making SVGs of ribbon bars, but it seems that Wikipedia ribbons are proportionately 20% taller than that. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These look fine to me. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mootros, Herostratus, and VMS Mosaic: I've updated the SVGs per the comments above. If these are acceptable to everyone, I will make the necessary adjustments to any templates and to the small ribbons so that they match the larger ribbons. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mootros, Herostratus, and VMS Mosaic: Small ribbons are done. I've just noticed that the medal images for the first six levels will probably need updating if they are to remain visually similar to these new ribbon bars. I do not have the necessary graphics software to make those changes. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll deal with the change, as long as the old versions are retained so they can still be displayed, including by those who currently do so.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? There's no need to retain the old versions. We just load the new images over the old ones, right? We don't want or need two or more versions of the same thing to be be extant, right? Herostratus (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, no point in a parallel scheme. Everything will properly display as images are updated. Mootros (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "old" ones and allow editors the choice, or, maybe just "go back" to the original ones. Several editors did a good faith project here, but, for me at least, the new approach kind of lessens the fun of seeing these ribbons on user pages. The "older" ones come across to me as colorful, festive, and brighter. These new ribbons have a World War II look. Was this change on rfc, or other noticeboards? Thanks. Randy Kryn 02:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: The only notices that I saw on any templates prompted discussion here, and not at any other noticeboards. There is no requirement for a formal RfC, so I began discussion here regarding the mismatch between the small and large ribbons. I saw that I was getting comments from editors who helped create this system years ago who supported the idea and liked the way I was designing the ribbons, so I took the ball and ran with it. If you wish to begin a formal RfC, I will gladly participate and abide by the results.

Regarding whether to display the old ribbons - that is of course one's own choice. There is a real-world history of being allowed to choose whether to display an award which was superseded or the new award, but once the recipient began displaying the new award, they were not allowed to display the old one. I have no problem if others choose to display the older awards. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late to the discussion, but I just noticed that this change was implemented, and I dislike it. The old color scheme looked better and differentiated each level, in addition to looking like "real" ribbons and not some computer-generated shapes that we now have. It would be nice if the templates for the awards included parameters that allows for the choice between the new and old designs, maybe with the new designs as the default. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quite happy with how the large ribbons looked, so I added shadows to give depth. I will do the same to the small ribbons in the coming week. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 21:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's happened again! Two years on, and I guess I'll start this guy up again.

Most Sagacious Editor (or High Ephoros of the Encyclopedia)
{{Most Sagacious Editor}}	{{High Ephoros}}	This editor is a Most Sagacious Editor and is entitled to display this Azbantium Editor Star with the Strangelet Puzzle Globe. {{Most Sagacious Editor Userbox}} This editor is a High Ephoros of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to this floor plan of the The Great Library of Alecyclopedias signed by Jimbo with a silver marker, and including its cardboard carrying tube, magnifying glass, and sonic screwdriver. {{High Ephoros Userbox}} {{Most Sagacious Editor Ribbon}} [[File:Editorrib24.svg]] {{Most Sagacious Editor topicon}}	Requirements: 235,000 edits and 24 years of service

I'll get started on the ribbon and building the base templates out soon. Certainly looking for help on the Most Sagacious star and High Ephoros entitlement, so let's get the discussion started. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for beginning the work on this. I will update {{Service awards}} and {{Service award progress}} when I have the time. That should be by the middle of next week. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I have some concerns about the practicality of the WMF issuing these medals. The BBC presumably controls access to the only known sources of Azbantium, so can I suggest we specify Actinium-227 instead? As far as I can see it is the closest interesting isotope to a 24 year half life, so an obvious link with a 24 year award (there is a lead one that's closer, but lead is a toxic, dull and unfashionable metal unsuitable for medals). ϢereSpielChequers 07:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Favor Azbantium. The dedication that the Doctor had to break through the Azbantium wall and save Clara Oswald symbolizes the dedication that Wikipedians have to create an encyclopedia which will last four and a half billion years (give or take a millennium). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be completely honest: it just happened to be the last one added to the list of fictional elements. I read it and thought it would be popular enough being from Doctor Who, with absolutely zero appreciation of the metaphorical applicability. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 15:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Azbantium does follow current precedents, I'll withdraw my objection and at some point I will make a proposal for a review of the whole system. ϢereSpielChequers 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if we can get this finished. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 12:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely flaked on the two templates I listed above. I'll get them done now and add Level 24 to the table. Hopefully we can get medal and book images soon. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly created the book image by adding the 12th Doctor's sonic screwdriver. I figured that was fitting since it was the 12th Doctor who broke through the Azbantium wall and we are using that for the medal. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- this is nice but I think it is time to extend the gaps. 3 or even 5 years make sense to me now that we are up to 24. I would have recommended skipping to 25 and then 30. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thought originally was to set us up for a 25 year, 250,000 edit award and then stop there or do at most every five years from there at a 10k per year edit rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a different book every five years, with annual increments of the coffee cup stain, post it note and so forth. Titles can go the same way with grand etc as the four annual increments in between five year changes. Re the element for the medals I'd still like to move to the isotope with the nearest halflife, but perhaps excluding anything that is a gas at room temperature. Unless of course the gas can be enclosed in some sort of ampule in the medal. ϢereSpielChequers 09:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most file licenses, including GFDL and CC BY, require attribution of the author and notice of the license terms, which we typically provide by linking the image to the file description page. See MOS:PDI for more info. This means that the |link= parameter in the image syntax can't be used, or if we use it then we need to provide the link in some other clear manner. Unfortunately the userbox and ribbon templates mostly aren't doing this, and many of the images aren't public domain. There are a few ways we might fix these issues:

1. Have the creators relicense the images as CC0 or public domain.
   • Looks like most of the ribbons are by User:Jkudlick. The last two, File:Editorrib23.svg and File:Editorrib24.svg, also list input from User:Vanisaac (plus a CC0 acorn image from Gabriel VanHelsing, which is already CC0 so not a problem).
   • The affected badges and souvenirs list a variety of authors.
2. Someone remake the images.
   • Would be a lot of work.
3. Adjust the templates to link the images to their description pages.
   • Should be simple enough for the userboxes, they have plenty of other links to the service award page. The ribbon ones would be difficult if we also want a link to Wikipedia:Service awards, as they're just the one image.
4. Put some obvious notice at each anchor pointing out that the images have licenses and attribution at the file description page, and convince ourselves that indirect linking is sufficient.
   • That'd be pretty repetitive in the table though. But I for one don't think anything less (e.g. a single notice at the top of the page) would be enough here.
5. Convince Commons that the images are somehow actually public domain despite the licensing claims.
   • Highly unlikely here, just mentioned for completeness.

IMO, if User:Jkudlick and User:Vanisaac are happy relicensing the ribbons (option #1), that'd take care of the hardest part. For the userboxes we could easily just remove the |link= from the images (option #3).

P.S. I see a similar discussion was held before in 2013, Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 6#Copyright violations. Then I guess everyone forgot when redesigning all the images. 😅 Anomie⚔ 01:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to license all of my contributions to any Service award images under CC0. Almost all of my contributions are either example graphemes of writing systems or Commons:BSicons, so they're all {{pd-text}} and {{pd-shape}} anyway. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 04:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also happy to relicense all of my contributions under CC0. I believe the vast majority of my contributions so far would also fall under {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-shape}}, and that should also include the admin service awards. I will review my contributions and relicense. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above, I went ahead and adjusted the affected userboxes as proposed. Thanks everyone! Anomie⚔ 18:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie: You're welcome! I did all this for the project, anyways, and I don't want anything to possibly get us in trouble.

@VanIsaac: The only images that still need to be done are File:Sagacious Editor.svg and File:Most Sagacious Editor.svg. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Senior Vanguard Editor.svg, which Ahecht made based on one of yours (and then you later updated), and File:Ultimate Vanguard Editor.svg which was based off of that one. Anomie⚔ 20:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Senior Vanguard is the linchpin to me being able to relicense the Sagacious set. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 03:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie, Vanisaac:  Done. I relicensed it as CC0, although I doubt it passed the TOO in the first place. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And mine are now updated as well.  Done VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 16:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one did File:Ultimate Vanguard Editor.svg but everyone involved has agreed, I went ahead and took care of that last one. Thanks everyone! Anomie⚔ 16:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the 'days of service' mean from one badge to another or in total since registering. Also applies to number of edits. SnappyRiffs (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Total since registering. Anomie⚔ 00:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in the section states To keep the validity and status of the major service awards, a ribbon is the only variant of the incremental service award., however the topicons exist for at least some of them (see my userpage for an example). Is this just out of date information or were the topicons never meant to exist? And, if it's the former, should the paragraph be deleted and the topicons shown in the table too? dot.py 23:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dot.py: The topicons use the ribbons for their images, but I do understand the confusion. I will make the correction. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's much less confusing. dot.py 23:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is an ‘Alecyclopedia’? Is a Wikipedia founder named Alec? It shows up in the higher ranks. Zxilef (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any past discussion at a quick search of the archives here. My guess it that "The Great Library of Alecyclopedias" is a mash-up of "The Great Library of Alexandria" and "Encyclopedias". Anomie⚔ 14:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The last couple days an editor has been trying to remind that the plan was to put up a 25-year 250,000 edits service award, which is why the standard of 15,000 edits a year was implemented during the past several years. At one point I recall someone saying that it would be the last award listed, and would mean the editor has 'won Wikipedia'. I can imagine a 30 year award being suggested near 2031, but for now the 25 year badge seems like reviving the plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "the plan", but I see you and VanIsaac talking about a 25-year award at e.g. Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 7#Building a level 23 service award (and possibly doing every 5 years after). I don't see anyone else commenting on the idea at a quick glance. There was also Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 7#25 year award suggesting an image and metal. I'm happy to leave it to you-all.

I don't see any sign that that editor was trying to remind anyone of that past discussion. They seem to have gotten the idea independently and were using it as an excuse for BFDI references. Anomie⚔ 14:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, correct ping for Vanisaac. Anomie⚔ 14:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking I recall that that's why the heavy-load standard of 15,000 edits a year was implemented (after the earlier 9,000 edits a year), to reach 250,000 at the 25 year mark. The editor who came up with this independently the last couple of days is starting out on their road to 25 years. On the other hand, if the 25 year award isn't done, will the 15,000 a year still hold for the 2027 or go back to 9,000 a year after 2026 (2027 being 259,000 edits and 26 years of service or 265,000 edits and 26 years?). Have always enjoyed the creativity of the metals and other elements used in these, except the cardboard carrying tube which wasn't an actual element of the scroll but just a tube. Whatever is decided it'll be fun to see what the next one is made from. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it! Given that we have a special anniversary, I'd love to see a new set of awards and graphics started up for this one. It would be great if we could get an SVG medal image to build off of in the coming years, and the library map is getting pretty crowded. I'll start up the process, though. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 06:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{Great Sagacious Editor}}

{{Grand Ephoros}}

This editor is a Great Sagacious Editor and is entitled to display this Lead-210 Editor Star. {{Great Sagacious Editor Userbox}} This editor is a Grand Ephoros of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to this hyperkytheria mechanism. {{Grand Ephoros Userbox}} {{Great Sagacious Editor Ribbon}} [[File:Editorrib25.svg]] {{Great Sagacious Editor topicon}}

Requirements: 250,000 edits and 25 years of service

Nice, and timely. But don't we need a metal for the medal? If so may I suggest lead-210 as from what I can see it has the closest link to 25 years. ϢereSpielChequers 11:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply]

What about iridium? User97104 (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the {{Service awards progress}} template says Sagacious Editor is the highest level. Should it be updated to include Most Sagacious Editor (and Great Sagacious Editor, if added?) User97104 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the code at Module:Service award progress to include the Level 24 award. When the Level 25 award is finalized, it will also be added. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a user which had 400 edits and 40 days of editing, the edit progress (towards Apprentice Editor) shown would be 200/800, which works out to 25%. If you did 400/1000, that would work out to 40%. User97104: Overview (communications, numbers) 14:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The template displays the progress to the next level, not overall progress. That's why it reads:

Currently, this editor has earned the {CURRENT AWARD NAME} service award.

To get to the next level, {NEXT AWARD NAME}, they need to meet...

There is no ambiguity in that verbiage. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]