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 Wikipedia This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia

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]

I suggested adding other incremental service awards for the other ranks, but I just discovered they were all deleted for some reason. I do not understand why they were deleted. So I recommend re-adding them. I also recommend we make them more official by creating separate templates and userboxes for each one. We also need to add incremental service rankings for the last three rankings. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blubabluba9990: A little over 6 years ago, a single editor added incremental service awards for all levels against consensus. That was reverted after discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons). Consensus remains that the current scheme of incremental awards for the earlier levels is sufficient, and that the addition of more userboxes or templates is unnecessary. I understand you are attempting to seek a change in that consensus, so I will state that I oppose your suggestion and maintain that there is no need for additional incremental service awards or for templates and userboxes for extant incremental service awards. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It is just that the editor never checked for consensus first, not necessarily that there was consensus against such a decision. Also, that was 6 years ago, users have come and gone, so that consensus will probably change. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having just made veteran (yay, me!) I am for more incremental ribbons! Where do I go to say this? --Neopeius (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see no point against making more incremental service awards. I would vote for support in this case. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 16:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

It was recently pointed out to me that the "service award" has a "years of service" component in addition to edit count. I was familiar with the edit count component, and I have been steadily advancing on that front as a busy WikiGnome. However, I would like to request that the "years of service part be an or, not an and. For newer editors, this can be highly encouraging, and I know the encyclopedia is struggling with gaining new quality editors/contributors. I think this would be a small thing we could do to help with that.

Alternatively, I'd request that all "years of service" requirements be halved, but I would suggest no change at all to the edit count "requirements" in any event.

Maybe we set this up as a RfC if need be. Thoughts? ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 02:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is really just for amusement, and it probably isn't worth worrying too much about the details. However, I don't see any reason at all why your suggested changes would improve anything. It's been in its present form for goodness how many years, and there isn't any obvious reason why it shouldn't continue as it is. JBW (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea. Whatever gets new editors excited about the project and if "advancing through the ranks" makes them more productive, I'm all for it. I remember when I was new in the project (almost 15 years ago), I always looked forward to being able to show my progress through the little barnstar medals and whatnot. I think a good place to start would be WP:VPP. Good luck! It's me...Sallicio! 21:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a horrible idea. We already have means of advertising how many edits one has committed. The point of service award is that you've accomplished both. If it takes that much encouragement to get you to edit, maybe you shouldn't be editing this wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're more of a the-beatings-will-continue-until-morale-improves kinda person, huh? (relax, I'm just kidding) It's me...Sallicio! 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the project ages so we need longer service awards. Currently it goes up to 20 which makes sense for an organisation that is about 21 years old. But in decades to come we will need to add more levels or stretch things out. We aren't the only voluntary organisation with service awards, and those that have been around longer have an award system that fits the profile of their volunteer base. In twentyyears time ifwe have a large group of editors who have been around for over 35 years it will look odd if the service award scheme only goes to twenty, and very odd if it only went to ten years. ϢereSpielChequers 21:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add on a bit to this point, but keeping up with those awards as they age is the primary reason why this board exists and has a consistent base of users monitoring it. I've taken part in getting both the 18 and 20 year service awards created, and it really only takes a few people paying attention every couple years to maintain something like this. But as to the original point, we already have both a simple service time recognition system (e.g. WP:Ten Year Society), as well as templates for advertising edit counts, page creations, time of service, etc.

These Service Awards are about consistent contribution to the project, and I think it's good to have multiple criteria. In point of fact, if I were building this from the ground up, I probably would set it up to have new requirements along the way, such as: 50 edits in all three of Template/Module, Wikipedia/Wikipedia Talk, and Category namespaces starting at level 5, Yeoman Editor, plus another 25 for each subsequent level; 100 large edits + 50 per level starting at level 7, Veteran editor (that requirement would actually drop me down two levels); active membership (at least 100 edits to articles or project talk page) in 2 WikiProjects + 1 per two levels starting at level 11; and 50 non-stub article creations + 10 per level starting at level 14, Master editor. Some other options could be file/media uploads (including commons), participation at admin noticeboards, major contributions to GA articles or Main page content (Did You Know, Featured Picture/Article, etc.) VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 23:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds complicated. This reminds me of the admin coaching era, when people were encouraged to dabble in a number of areas to become a wellrounded candidate. But what was perceived to happen was that people did a bunch of edits to tick some boxes,not because they really thought them useful. Worse, it implies that someone who has never touched a particular area is somehow a lesser member of the community. That would be antithetical to the idea of a service award that was open to all. As it happens I've done a bit in category space (I've done a lot of categorisation) and also started some new articles. But I wouldn't want to create a system that rejected people who never touch category space, or those who only improve existing articles but never start new ones. ϢereSpielChequers 09:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't think about adding categories to pages as not actually being an edit in the category namespace when I was writing this, so that one is kind of out there as written. But I still think the idea of engagement in several areas as being important to people for whom service is a driving force. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 23:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be rather surprised to find someone who'd clocked up over a 100,000 edits and been here many years, but didn't have quite a bit of diversity in the areas where they edit. I think that "engagement in several areas" is more relevant as an RFA test - I'm sure I've seen it in at least one person's RFA criteria. But must have passed these six tests is way more specific than "engagement in several areas" how about something along the lines of Shown engagement in several areas - at least three of the following six:" ϢereSpielChequers 22:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is the last time I make a suggestion like this ! Sorry everyone for pestering! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so hard on yourself, it has been an amicable discussion and one should be willing to review these things from time to time. Incidentally we do have userboxes for high volume editors like you and I. ϢereSpielChequers 17:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the rate of edits per year needed for perfect synchrony with the service award scheme goes up as one ascends through the ladder. In my opinion, it starts too low and ends too high. Looking at the first seven levels, I can well understand such complaints. On the other hand I'm now consistently behind the rate needed for the higher levels. But the lower levels have been around for so long that this is essentially unfixable. Double sharp (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested, more levels are needed, but I also think that it would be an EASY (and most welcome for new editors) thing to do would be to just HALVE the time thresholds needed, and keep the edit count requirements the same... This seems to be far more controversial though for some reason than I possibly could have imagined, so I will leave it be... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the numerical standards are too high. also the different levels of "Master Editor" need to be more elaborate. "Master Editor I, II, III" simply doesn't say anything. we should follow the model of "Grandmaster" levels, such as: "Ultimate," "First Class," etc. Pinging @Th78blue:, to get their input at least. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually think the numerical levels (number of edits) is just fine, but I would HALVE the time it takes to reach each level. Given that this is a "just for fun", I am surprised at how little interest there seems to be in inserting more "fun" into it. It seems to be more like a vaunted and protected Masonic ritual at this point than a fun prize token for constructive contributors to the encyclopedia... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 16:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those of us who have spent years on Wikipedia with the current system only see changes as a detriment. A new editor who hasn't earned anything sees little problem in "fixing" something that isn't broken. I would suggest you find motivation to write an encyclopedia, not wrack up edits for edits' sake. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman "...only see changes as a detriment"? So are no changes beneficial? Any exceptions? And are you implying that my motivation is other than to "write an encyclopedia"? Because that would be really hurtful and not appreciated. I gladly donate copious amounts of my time to try and help in whatever small ways that I can (reverting vandalism, making copy edits, etc.), to contribute to this wonderful project. I am sure you do the same, and I would not state, nor imply, that your edits are ever to the contrary, as I have come across your edits before, and they have always been professional and helpful...even when they might be reverts of my own work (which I have learned and once gave you WikiLove Tea as "thanks"). I hadn't yet heard from Sm8900, I suppose I was frustrated. What if you work REALLY HARD over a shorter period of time? Are you still expected to simply "gain seniority"? That just felt wrong to me in some way, but if I am truly in the minority on that, then so be it, it is a project of the community and built on consensus. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 01:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are just self-reverting yourself over and over again or something dumb like that, anything small, even a minor contribution still helps Wikipedia. Perhaps this gives people the idea that they can progress through the ranks and after a long while, they begin to realize that it's not about the edits, and now they just edit wikipedia. Perhaps MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 15:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is my thinking exactly. Glad to know that there are editors like you out there! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that suggesting changes to this is fine. And also, since one whole point is to motivate and encourage greater participation, it seems fine to suggest specific things that might make the editing process seem more inviting to newer editors who might not have as much time spent editing here as others might have. Sm8900 (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your comment too! I really appreciate interacting with positive people/editors. I think the encyclopedia is a wonderful thing, and I'm just always trying to put on my thinking cap as to how to improve it, but I understand that sometimes things might be just fine the way they are too! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem we have with the service awards is that the project is barely 21 years old. In another forty years or so we will need a very different system that works for everyone from near newbie to the person who has been here for half a century or more. ϢereSpielChequers 15:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Need"? To me the "Service awards" were a somewhat tongue-in-cheek aspect of adding some fun into the work we all contribute to the encyclopedia. Anyway, the above conversation I found to be so depressing that I removed any mention of a service award on my page, and any user box along with that. Hopefully someone else has a suggestion that is more well received than mine. Or we can just change nothing, that is always a great plan too! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change the rulebook in the middle of the stream, and dance with the horse that brung you. Nothing is broken here (except that cardboard tube at a high level, can't it be dipped in holograph juice or something). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A recurring theme of suggestions at this page is that we are treating automated and minor edits like mine in the same way as we treat manual and far from minor edits. If I'm fixing a typo across Wikipedia I can make a lot of edits in an hour, another editor might make just one for the same amount of editing time. One way round this would be to have two ways of counting the edits for these awards. So the time requirement would be the same, but you could meet the edit requirement either with a total edits figure on the current scale, or by meeting a much lower number on a "Manual edits" scale. This would use your edit count, minus any automated or semi automated edits or any edits you had marked as minor. ϢereSpielChequers 10:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How serious are we supposed to take these "awards"? That is a serious question by the way. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not very seriously at one end of the scale and fairly seriously at another. But that's a very different question than I was addressing so I'll give it its own thread. ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Service awards currently require incrementally more edits per day to meet: first 11 edits, then 22, 24 and finally 35 edits per day. This incremental raising of the time commitment editors are expected to have to wikipedia is in tension with WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and feeds into WP:BURNOUT of editors at all rights-levels. There are so many gallows-humour essays on burnout and spending too much time on wikipedia that there's a template to navigate them all: Template:Wikipediholism. The service awards should not be a tool that normalises overwork and burnout.

I propose to reduce the edits per day increases and broaden what counts as an edit. The new rationale would be:

• Levels 2 though 7 levels, which cover the first two years of one's editing career, would require a rate of 4,000 edits per year on the English-language Wikipedia

• Levels 8 through 22, require a rate of 5,000 edits per year, of which 1,000 can be on other WMF services.

'Other WMF services' include non-English Wikipedia, Wikidata, Quarry, WMF bug trackers and version control systems, commons, meta.wiki, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc; the goal is to encourage broad engagement with the wiki project. The goal of 'Other WMF services' is to encourage a broad view of what an editor is and to encourage editors to experiment and find their 'thing.' I'm believe we should be de-emphasising 'edits per day' as in discussion on the page, since this implies that editors should be editing everyday. Edits per year says the same thing without the implication. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for any suggestion that gets people more involved. Good luck in this endeavor! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought that we might be able to help improve the system of "Service awards", and I was of the opinion that such "awards" were a fun way to "reward" one's self as a result of serious contributions that have greatly aided the quality of the encyclopedia. I am somewhat less optimistic now that these awards serve a neutral purpose though. In the description for Wikipedia:Service awards, it says in the third paragraph, Please remember that neither the number of edits nor the length of time from when an account was created is a good indicator of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability. Hence, service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors., but I am coming around to believing that this aspect of the "awards" is not entirely true, or is at least not honored in a de facto sense if it is still somehow "true" otherwise

What do I mean by this? I mean that though the service awards are meant not to convey, "...any level of authority whatsoever", the fact that any change to the system is defended against so seriously, indicates to me that in fact manner "authority" is indeed signaled to other editors by those holding such Service Awards proudly on their User Pages. Furthermore, at least in my own experience—I would imagine that this might be true in other editors experiences too—that the service awards do seem to be wielded in such a manner as that they convey at least some element of serving as tokens of respect or seniority. Again, I would caution that such "respect or seniority" seems to me to be dangerously close to "authority" in a real sense, even if there isn't any granted "de jure" power from these service awards, there is I believe a de facto authority, even if very minor.

What is to be done? If my thinking above is correct, and we can certainly debate whether or not it is. I initially thought that it might be best to try and change aspects of the system—and I am still open to that possibility—but I think that there might be another path. A path that helps lessen any tendencies in any of us towards editcountitis, and that is, to abolish the service awards entirely.

While many of us have worked hard to collectively come together and build the encyclopedia, we should frankly gain satisfaction from the constructive adds (or subtractions) that we have made to it in the first place, independent of any external "reward". Any additional merit award, trophy, or symbol, serves purposes that I am beginning to feel might not be entirely beneficial to the health of the wikipedia community as a whole.

Well these were just some of my own thoughts. Perhaps my thinking is in the minority, but I tend to believe that if something serves to divide the community, or even if it simply doesn't have concrete, tangible, measurable benefits, then it ought to be considered for abolition, or at minimum considered for reform.

Thanks for reading my comments. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service Awards embody a representation of who we (as editors) think are are and what we aspire to be. As such they are useful in reflecting and maintaining collective norms within the community. I believe they're useful, but would 100% be open to renaming some awards to remove implications of real authority. 121.99.219.62 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea too. I'd be open to suggestions. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 11:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: So if you can't have an award, it should be abolished? Why don't you go write an article? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am "entitled" to display an "award", I choose not to display one—see reasons listed above—feel free to respond to any. Thank you.♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 11:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards are a tried and tested tool for volunteer organisations as diverse as blood donors and disability charities. We are currently only twenty one years old as an organisation, our service award system is bound to look very different in thirty or forty years time. But the time to decide that we don't need to encourage editor retention through such tools is going to be after we have the data to say how they influence editor motivation over periods of half a century or more. I think we should think about how service awards are measured when people have gaps of a year or a decade in their contributions. But it would be odd to have a largescale volunteer organisation where service awards were counter productive. ϢereSpielChequers 11:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be odd indeed, and so it is. 21+ years is not exactly a spring chicken either for a website such as this . ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 11:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that service awards should be retained. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing some of OPs points:

• Regarding "Please remember that... "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors", OP suspecting that that's that not actually true. Well of course its not true, not for a lot of people. It's fine to say it; we should say it; it's good politics to say it; and it's not devoid of truth to a degree. Doesn't make it generally true. Doesn't mean there's no such thing as moral authority in life or here (especially as we lack formal leadership). We are busy here and a quick look that someone has been a regular contributor for 15 years is one data point in sussing if an editor can be assumed likely to have commitment, understanding of how things are done here, the ability that long practice tends to bring, and so on, compared to a neophyte, which can certainly matter at various times. Editors are free to think that moral authority is not a thing, but for my part I have a limited patience for hearing... that sort of thing.

• Regarding "editcountitis" (a pejorative term for taking pride in one's long and valuable service, which you actually don't hear much anymore, thank goodness), how many editors deliberately inflate their edit count by, let's say, making lots of edits on purpose to accomplish some task when many fewer edits would do? Very very few I would say, I have been here 15+ years and I have not seen a clear case of it. I have seen editors who make 10 or 15 small edits in a row to an article, but I think that is mostly just their style. Some editors want to make an edit, publish, look at the result, and continue to the next fix. Most editors just use preview and make all their fixes at once, but do we really want to straitjacket everyone into doing it that way if it doesn't suit them?

If it's a matter of someone making many minor editors, typo fixes and so on, is that a bad thing? Should the small subset of editors who enjoy contributing that way be discouraged from doing so? Of course not. For those very few editors who spend energy on inflating their edit counts on purpose, so what? It's not a significant detriment to the project. Who cares.

Having a lot of edits here is not a bad thing nor is taking pride in it. Editors are free to think that it is, but for my part I have a limited patience for hearing... that sort of thing.

• Re "we should frankly gain satisfaction from the constructive adds (or subtractions) that we have made to it in the first place, independent of any external 'reward'", I personally have found "not telling other people how to feel" is a good policy. Works for me anyway. Re "Any additional merit award, trophy, or symbol, serves purposes that I am beginning to feel might not be entirely beneficial to the health of the wikipedia community as a whole" . For this I'd want some kind of explanation based on some kind of understanding of human nature rather than what is maybe an uninformed emotion.

• I like to believe that figuring out how to keep a volunteer organization is not something you can figure out very quickly or that everyone has a talent for or is necessarily all that easy. We can't give raises. We can't give promotions. We don't have leaders so its up to the community to do this. It's part of our job (not everyone's, but those who care to) along with writing material and engaging in discussions and so forth. Pats on the back and so on are part of that; so are the Service Awards.

(We also have barnstars (a fading practice I think), but one's likeability and political savvy and predeliction for working with other editors rather than solo -- and also luck -- partly determines that, and they're usually given (by those who like to, many editors don't) for some particular bit of work. Barnstars are fine, but they are just different.)

• I think that community in general has voted with their feet that the Service Awards are OK, based on the number of editors who display them (and ranging across the personality spectrum from cheerful group member types to embittered misanthropes, in my experience). Anyone is welcome to nominate them a fourth time for deletion, and good luck with that. For my part I'd consider that annoying priggery, as I consider many attempts to tell other people what to do, particularly when it doesn't affect article content, but that's just me, and it's a free project.

• "It is amazing what a man will do for a piece of colored ribbon" said Napoleon, who was nobody's fool. His organization was pretty successful for quite a while. "What's so bad about feeling good?" asked George Seaton. "Against gay marriage? Don't have one" says the bumper sticker (I think you can see how that applies to displaying a service award). IMO these are fair points.

Alright, end of rant. Sorry to be so oppositional, but false and inflammatory stuff like "serves to divide the community" doesn't put me in the best mood, which I would hope you would have expected. Herostratus (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion either way, but I'm just chiming in to say I've been in my share of disputes and have never once seen an editor hold their service awards as a mark of status over another. People here have been for the most part pretty restrained from referencing any badge of authority (such as real-life qualifications and experience), other than admins when necessary. More friction seems to come from typical human foibles such as self-righteousness, differing force of personalities, and persistence to argue over edits. Perhaps what Th78blue has perceived as awards causing self-entitlement is just people who act self-entitled in general? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelRiv, well said. Sm8900 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus:, I think Barn Stars are actually better, since you are given them by OTHER editors. Also, I have no argument with the above on edit style or quantity of edits, I took issue mostly with the quantity of time that was arbitrarily determined to make it to each service award level. I have argued for halving those times for each and every award. I'm all for a resurgence of the use of barn stars! And I believe they would be far preferable to the self given service awards. As for @SamuelRiv:, I've been in my share of disputes and have never once seen an editor hold their service awards as a mark of status over another. People here have been for the most part pretty restrained from referencing any badge of authority..., I might agree there, but then again, they don't seem to have to. The mere fact of its prominent display is enough, no need to mention the badge as a cop, you just have the badge... "It is amazing what a man will do for a piece of colored ribbon" said Napoleon... is an exact example of why we wouldn't want one. See the excellent book War Is a Racket by Smedley Butler to see how problematic that thinking of Napoleon's was. In short, it made the world more violent, because war became less expensive. Instead of needing to pay soldiers as high as possible, or rather to allow them the spoils of war and to keep some loot and treasure, you'd give them a ribbon, and they would feel patriotic pride. Devilish Napoleon...but it sure helped bring about the modern military complex in some way by cheapening the cost of infantry, and enabling more spend on other military equipment. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 04:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reaching 60,000 edits should qualify an editor for an entirely new title, not simply yet another level within "Master Editor." So what should come right before "Grandmaster Editor"? I'm open to ideas. Maybe "Sage Editor"? I'm just thinking off the top of my head. Please feel free to add any ideas.

(and by the way, no this is not for me; yes, I am a Master Editor, but I'm not very close to 60,000 edits yet. and I have been here a long time, longer than some other editors who have already far exceeded that quantitiy of edits! ) thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we must have service awards. I do not know if more is better. Maybe it is, I am going to need to think on that one some more. Interested to read other editors thoughts though. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 04:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's getting to be that time again. The service time for the level 23 service award (22 years) is coming up in less than 6 months, so we should start getting on this. As always, please feel free to start building templates, adding images, and proposing any updates or changes in the discussion below.

Sagacious Editor (or Ephoros of the Encyclopedia)
{{Sagacious Editor}} {{Sagacious Editor}}	{{Ephoros}} {{Ephoros}}	{{Sagacious Editor Userbox}} {{Sagacious Editor Userbox}} {{Ephoros Userbox}} {{Ephoros Userbox}} {{Sagacious Editor Ribbon}} [[File:Editorrib23.svg]] {{Sagacious Editor topicon}}	Requirements: 205,000 edits and 22 years of service

We were running out of room for a sixth ship's wheel on our purple ribbon, so I thought a move to acorns on a green ribbon would be an interesting development to tide us over for the next decade or so of ribbons. I adaptated User:Sm8900's suggestion above for the name of "Sagacious Editor" on this new level. For the alternate name, "Ephoros" is ancient Greek for "overseer", and was an office in Spartan society, and "Overseer of the Encyclopedia" seemed like an appropriate appellation.

As always, looking forward to seeing what others come up with for some of these other awards. Some resources for the Sagacious Editor template are the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles, category:Exotic matter, and real chemical elements, as we did with the Meitnerium star on level 22. I don't know if we want to keep the library map/QR code for the Ephoros level, but I'm sure someone will do it justice. I have started the 15k edits/year rate to build us up to 250,000 at 25 years for a special level 25 award in three years. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 06:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi there. I'm so glad that my idea was above was useful. thanks for your note! I like your ribbon above as an initial design. in my opinion, it needs more insignia for higher rank. the abstract design is very elegant, but I think that what we want here is something that conveys high and prominent rank more clearly

I would suggest that we use the usual symbols that are generally used to indicate higher rank, in relevant fields. So therefore we could perhaps adapt insignia of high rank that are already regularly used by uniformed services. I would suggest, we look at possible options, such as laurel wreaths, or stars, or ceremonial bars, or crossed maces, or anything that is conventionally used to denote higher rank. I appreciate your great idea in initiating this topic. thanks! ---Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually think this would be a good to to start going from 2 year incriments to 5 year incriments and not have another service award until we reach year 25. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue is that these awards aren't really for any individual editors that might achieve them. It's such a rarefied group of editors who can make it to this sort of edit count. It really is more a celebration of Wikipedia that we would continue making these awards at this level, so why limit ourselves? VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The acorn was intended as a direct parallel to the plant parts (leaves, lotus flowers, etc.) used across the world around the O-4 / O-5 rank. Stars and bars were both used at lower levels in the service awards, so those would be too confusing to go back to. But I'll take a look at laurel wreath and mace SVGs, and see if I can't find an appropriate one to mock up to see how they look at ribbon size. The "crossed maces" made me think about the keys on the Vatican coat of arms, so I think keys of knowledge might be a really good symbolism to try out as well. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanisaac: I like the idea of using acorns, as it can more easily be replicated across the ribbon as the levels increase. With my greatly limited artistic ability, I already added keys to the Level 18+ Administrative Service Awards, so using keys for editor service awards could introduce some level of confusion. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we are keeping these awards, then yes, I think that this acorn design is a nice one.♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]