This is the
talk page for discussing
Service awards and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
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 Wikipedia page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
° | 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)
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)
@ 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)
° | 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 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)
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}} | {{ Ephoros}} |
{{ Sagacious Editor Ribbon}} [[ File:Editorrib23.svg]] {{ Sagacious Editor topicon}} |
Requirements:
|
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. Van Isaac, MPLL cont WpWS 06:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
At this rate, we should just go ahead and start planning for an award for editors who have 410,000 edits and 44 years of service. BD2412 T 02:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, you know what? We could just stop raising the edit counts. I mean if you've got 132,000 edits, you've earned a rest I think.
I originally made the edit count requirements too high I think. If you're doing machine edits, it doesn't matter, but if you're doing manual edits... man, that is a lot of editing, constant editing.
We did have a reform a few years back where we dropped the edit requirements for the very highest levels. It only affected like IDK 20-30 people, who got bumped up a level. I went to each one and updated their status and explained the deal, which was a few hours work I guess. It's way way too late to reform any levels below the very few highest, you'd be dealing with hundreds of people and bothering and confusing them over what after all is a toy.
However, for the new level, and possibly the top level or top two levels below that... we are a wiki, we can do what we want, do whatever best serves the project. So, currently, we have these top levels:
But how about this instead:
I mean sheesh, you've made 132,000 edits. 22 years, if you started when you were 50 you're 72 now. I think you've earned the right to drift forward with just the passage of time at this point. I mean we are not taskmasters here. We don't need an 80 year old editor being like "fuck, I need 10,000 more to get the next level." (Yeah I know, but some people are obsessive, after all.) In other fields old distinguished persons collect honorary degrees and Medals of Freedom and Nobel Prizes etc even if they're not contributing anymore.
If for some reason we wanted a progression of edits, we could tune it way down:
(Incidentally, off topic fun fact, did you know that the Service Awards take no account any end time and in fact you can progress even if you're dead. I recently went to a deceased editors talk page, noted his current level, and what his new levels will be as the years progress (he had like 200,000 edits). Why not?)
Thoughts? Herostratus ( talk) 02:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
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.So Jkudlick's proposal that starts lowering the edit rate for the top two levels gets my support. If we really can't even change levels 21 and 22, then at least we could start lowering the 12,500/year rate from level 23 onwards. Double sharp ( talk) 06:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I found a larger version of the cover of The Complete Compendium of Universal Knowledge but now the WP: page has an overlarge thumb. Arlo James Barnes 06:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Despite changing its base name, background color and stuff, Sagacious still extends the floor plan from the last tier! IMO, this is quite lazy (no offense). Any ideas for a new object to replace it?
Personally, I'd go for a cool name for a wand that summons knowledge with the next tier gaining a preference cogwheel for it, but maybe that hits a bit too close to ChatGPT.
If we continue with the "medium of knowledge" theme, maybe a "
cluedo set" (idk, this is supposed to be analogous) for the grand mansion of knowledge?? With the next tier gaining the keys to the entrance.
Or maybe a transport map for a (rapid?) rail transport network between knowledge, with labeled stops being in the next tier?
Or maybe replace that with roads since roads came before rail, and save rail for the next time we switch backgrounds?
Aaron Liu (
talk) 01:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I think a separate award track for edit count, and a separate one for years of continuous service, would make more sense than the current approach of combining the two with some unclear notion of average(?)/typical(?)/exemplary(?)/variable(?) edits per year ★NealMcB★ ( talk) 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
unclear notion of average(?)/typical(?)/exemplary(?)/variable(?) edits per year, implies a way too low rate of edits per year. Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk) 15:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The time necessary to get these awards is highly unproportional to the number of edits. The expected rate of edits is way to low. We must change something immediately 14 novembre ( talk) 15:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
We must change something immediatelywithout offering anything is likely to be ignored. This is a system that has been in place for years, so your reasoning for any changes has to be extremely compelling. It's also just for fun, so... — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The awards imply an editing rate which is far lower than the average of most active editors. I suggest, to make it simple, double all the numbers of edits required. Let me know what you think. Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk) 🇮🇹 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Would this be retroactive to all editors? What is the justification for the change, other than "it seems the edit rate needs to be increased"?— Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
You wrote "so we agree that 4000 edits/year is actually low for an active editor." I, for one, am of the opinion that exceeding 4000 edits/year is extremely rare. David notMD ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
That's complete baloney, 14 novembre. 4000 edits a year is highly active. According to the Wikimedia Foundation as described at Wikipedia:Activity, an editor with over 100 edits a month (over 1200 a year), is considered to be a Very active editor. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
Service awards and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
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 Wikipedia page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
° | 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)
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)
@ 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)
° | 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 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)
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}} | {{ Ephoros}} |
{{ Sagacious Editor Ribbon}} [[ File:Editorrib23.svg]] {{ Sagacious Editor topicon}} |
Requirements:
|
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. Van Isaac, MPLL cont WpWS 06:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
At this rate, we should just go ahead and start planning for an award for editors who have 410,000 edits and 44 years of service. BD2412 T 02:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, you know what? We could just stop raising the edit counts. I mean if you've got 132,000 edits, you've earned a rest I think.
I originally made the edit count requirements too high I think. If you're doing machine edits, it doesn't matter, but if you're doing manual edits... man, that is a lot of editing, constant editing.
We did have a reform a few years back where we dropped the edit requirements for the very highest levels. It only affected like IDK 20-30 people, who got bumped up a level. I went to each one and updated their status and explained the deal, which was a few hours work I guess. It's way way too late to reform any levels below the very few highest, you'd be dealing with hundreds of people and bothering and confusing them over what after all is a toy.
However, for the new level, and possibly the top level or top two levels below that... we are a wiki, we can do what we want, do whatever best serves the project. So, currently, we have these top levels:
But how about this instead:
I mean sheesh, you've made 132,000 edits. 22 years, if you started when you were 50 you're 72 now. I think you've earned the right to drift forward with just the passage of time at this point. I mean we are not taskmasters here. We don't need an 80 year old editor being like "fuck, I need 10,000 more to get the next level." (Yeah I know, but some people are obsessive, after all.) In other fields old distinguished persons collect honorary degrees and Medals of Freedom and Nobel Prizes etc even if they're not contributing anymore.
If for some reason we wanted a progression of edits, we could tune it way down:
(Incidentally, off topic fun fact, did you know that the Service Awards take no account any end time and in fact you can progress even if you're dead. I recently went to a deceased editors talk page, noted his current level, and what his new levels will be as the years progress (he had like 200,000 edits). Why not?)
Thoughts? Herostratus ( talk) 02:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
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.So Jkudlick's proposal that starts lowering the edit rate for the top two levels gets my support. If we really can't even change levels 21 and 22, then at least we could start lowering the 12,500/year rate from level 23 onwards. Double sharp ( talk) 06:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I found a larger version of the cover of The Complete Compendium of Universal Knowledge but now the WP: page has an overlarge thumb. Arlo James Barnes 06:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Despite changing its base name, background color and stuff, Sagacious still extends the floor plan from the last tier! IMO, this is quite lazy (no offense). Any ideas for a new object to replace it?
Personally, I'd go for a cool name for a wand that summons knowledge with the next tier gaining a preference cogwheel for it, but maybe that hits a bit too close to ChatGPT.
If we continue with the "medium of knowledge" theme, maybe a "
cluedo set" (idk, this is supposed to be analogous) for the grand mansion of knowledge?? With the next tier gaining the keys to the entrance.
Or maybe a transport map for a (rapid?) rail transport network between knowledge, with labeled stops being in the next tier?
Or maybe replace that with roads since roads came before rail, and save rail for the next time we switch backgrounds?
Aaron Liu (
talk) 01:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I think a separate award track for edit count, and a separate one for years of continuous service, would make more sense than the current approach of combining the two with some unclear notion of average(?)/typical(?)/exemplary(?)/variable(?) edits per year ★NealMcB★ ( talk) 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
unclear notion of average(?)/typical(?)/exemplary(?)/variable(?) edits per year, implies a way too low rate of edits per year. Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk) 15:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The time necessary to get these awards is highly unproportional to the number of edits. The expected rate of edits is way to low. We must change something immediately 14 novembre ( talk) 15:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
We must change something immediatelywithout offering anything is likely to be ignored. This is a system that has been in place for years, so your reasoning for any changes has to be extremely compelling. It's also just for fun, so... — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The awards imply an editing rate which is far lower than the average of most active editors. I suggest, to make it simple, double all the numbers of edits required. Let me know what you think. Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk) 🇮🇹 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Would this be retroactive to all editors? What is the justification for the change, other than "it seems the edit rate needs to be increased"?— Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
You wrote "so we agree that 4000 edits/year is actually low for an active editor." I, for one, am of the opinion that exceeding 4000 edits/year is extremely rare. David notMD ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
That's complete baloney, 14 novembre. 4000 edits a year is highly active. According to the Wikimedia Foundation as described at Wikipedia:Activity, an editor with over 100 edits a month (over 1200 a year), is considered to be a Very active editor. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)