Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:Service awards
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Mootros in topic Lowering the edit requirements - making it happen
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Soap bubble example (Burba)

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Some have asked what is the relation to "soap bubble" for Burba Award.

Here a few examples:

  • Soap bubbles made by children at play = WP first attempts to edit
  • Burst a soap bubble, never seen again; = some novice editors just give up after a few edits after they lost interest with their new "wikipeadia toy"[1].
  • Playful alternative to the more regimentalised example of "recruit"
  • Has been around since Doomsday: i.e. 08:04, 19 January 2010 [2] and enjoyed by many.
  • ...

Mootros (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem about removing the bulky images. Removing the "Soap bubble" that has been here for almost a year, courtesy of MiQ (and subject to previous discussions), should not just be removed without further discussions. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think that people get it, I don't think it's relative, I don't think it's necessary and I don't think I'm the only one with that opinion (I know I'm not). Since it was added it has been removed multiple times, there's nothing that says it should stay by default, and the word "Burba" was originally chosen because it means recruit. Adding a loosely associated alternative meaning is simply not necessary. SwarmTalk 07:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. Calling anyone a "soap bubble" is simply silly. We are supposed to be editors not detergents. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 07:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bur(b/d)a

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't "Burba" be changed to something else? It bears a disturbing resemblence to "Burda", as in Beverly Ann Burda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoop whoop pull up (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything bears resemblance to something: Inevitably, the way of being in the world. Please try to sign your comments. Many thanks. Mootros (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh-kazay. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic suggestion

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to suggest adjusting the double-border thinkness of the service userboxes so that they stack more consistently with other userboxes. Opposed? KimChee (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it, and thank you. Herostratus (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I applied this to the smaller "book" userboxes and they do stack more consistently now. I am also creating redirects for compatibility with Babel-style containers that expect certain template names to begin with "User". I will wait a few days to see if anyone comments before applying this to the medal userboxes. KimChee (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Be bold — do it — he who hesitates is lost! — Robert Greer (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Signator

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, Is the Signator ribbon an actual award. If it is, please tell me at User Talk:Awardgive Awardgive, ruler of every world in the sodaie way (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are a real service award --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

An edit count proposal with reasoning. Please respond!

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

I've always liked the idea of the "Service Award" because it gives people something to strive for. However, I have to admit that the "edit count" aspect has always seemed far too high to me as well. When a new editor arrives, you want to give rewards a bit more quickly, as the point is to encourage participation. I like the 100 edit and one month minimum for the first badge, but keep in mind that this means that a person would have to log on every day that month and make at least 3-4 edits. This may seem trivial to people that edit with bots or feel that adding a comma is as valuable as a 500 character, well researched addition, but it is all about editing style. Also, many people increase edit count by making a series of small changes to an article, and some people make their changes by making all these changes at once for a single edit. Finally, just because a person doesn't use the "Show preview" button and has to fix an edit a half dozen times, they should not be getting "credit" for a half dozen edits. I know there are people that dedicate a lot of time to Wikipedia, and for them it really is like a full-time job. There should be in place a system that allows for that kind of gradation at the high end, but doesn't discourage newer editors with impossible-seeming edit totals while they are still learning.

First things first, assume that bot-totals don't apply here. That isn't editing, that's autodialing.
0. 1 edit and 1 day
1. 100 edits & 1 month
2. 250 edits & 3 months
3. 600 edits & 6 months
4. 1200 edits & 12 months

This would complete the "starter" ranks and force people to worry less about edit count, which in my opinion encourages sloppy editing. Putting the first badge at 100 makes the edit count sizable, but certainly reasonable. The counts after that actually slow down slightly, but are meant to encourage steady and reasoned editing. After this point, the pace would pick up a bit:

5. 2000 edits and 18 months
6. 4000 edits and 24 months
7. 6500 edits and 30 months
8. 9000 edits and 36 months
9. 12,000 edits and 42 months
10. 15,000 edits and 48 months

These are the "secondary ranks that are designed to get a person from "casual user" to "Educated Wikipedian". By the time a person has 15,000 personal edits that person will almost certainly be more familiar with the policies and proceedures than someone with 250. This gives the Service Award a little more meaning. Higher award recipients would have no more authority than lower award earners, but they chould be considered a good resource for those users that are less experienced. After all, the only purpose in displaying these awards is vanity, and someone that doesn't want to be looked to as a source of wisdom simply isn'tgoing to be interested in putting a service award on their userpage anyway.

After this point there is a lot of room for negotiation as to how the awards should be ramped up, but I think that is a good discussion to have. In truth, the current tables could be used as is with only minor modification to the first couple times and edit counts. We have a great matrix here, but I do agree that it needs to be tweaked. Thoughts? Rapier (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Much of this has already been discussed; see the first topic on this page. I agree that edit count is not a good measure of quality; I'll even agree that the requirements are too high, seeing as I have the time served for an award two or three steps higher than my edit count. But we've been over it before, and I'll let the other editors opine before this goes anywhere. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It's just a bit of fun, by no means a measure of quality of work. Yes, much of this has already been discussed. Mootros (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been considerable discussion on the concept of why there is an edit count and a time requirement. I've been editing on Wikipedia for more than 3 years, and I've contributed to this particular project several times. I have not seen an actual proposal put forward for discussion on what those edit changes could be and the reasoning behind it. I'm specifically asking for discussion on this particular proposal Rapier (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I oppose such discussion. First of all, I question many of your premises. You don't have to "log on every day that month and make at least 3-4 edits" to reach Level 2, you can make 50 edits in a day easily. People "increase edit count by making a series of small changes to an article" Do they? Why would anyone do that? Edit count is just not that valuable. If they are up for RfA their deliberate inflation of their count will likely tell against them, and there is no other important place where edit count matters. If it really pleases them to increase their edit count in this manner, big deal, so what. I'd like to see solid evidence that this is actually a problem before discussing a solution. "[A]ssume that bot-totals don't apply here. That isn't editing, that's autodialing." That's your opinion. If a bot edit is significantly less valuable than a hand edit, that might make sense. Is it?
I an long-time editor with a level of participation that goes up and down. I have created whole articles with a single post, and I have also made many fix-a-comma type edits. Both are valuable. I find that my time served and my edit counts are in the right ballpark for levels of these awards, although my edits lag somewhat. Others have also found this; sometimes it is the time that lags somewhat. People who use bots, their time will lag a lot, and people who post articles with one edit and don't also do other, edit-intensive, tasks, their edits will lag a lot. That's their choice. If it really bothers them, I guess they can do tasks that deliberately inflate their edit counts.
I am also generally opposed to anything that adds complexity or requires or enshrines the judging of edits. Formulae where a talk page edit counts as .85 of an article edit or that sort of thing: no. Too complicated. (I realize you have not proposed this sort of thing, but it does come up.) Declaring that bot edits don't count: no, enshrines a judgment and would be divisive.
Finally, the awards are in place and have been for a while. I would oppose making significant changes in the levels at this point absent an extremely good reason. I would like people to have confidence that they are not dealing with a moving target, nor likely to find their level changed overnight due to a change on this page. It would be possible to fork this page or create a new system, although I would not at all like to see a proliferation of competing systems. Herostratus (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think you may mean that you oppose my proposal (which is fine), rather than discussion of my proposal, which is what you said. While I happen to disagree with your points (I don't have time to go into it now), I appreciate your addition to the discussion. Thank you. Rapier (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally I am AGAINST to whole idea of getting awards for number of edits.. Herostratus you are right that it is possible to create whole articles in a single edit, using the preview button.. But a lot of people either don't, or they make edits in a million parts.. Take this article for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunyoro&action=history A single user has made A LOT of very small edits, that could easily have been made in 2-3 larger edits.. A user like this may easily get 10.000 edits, but not have contributed more than a 2.000-edit user... I find that it can be a problem with that many small edits when looking over the changes made to an article to find out if it is justifiable/verifiable.. Skibden (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) That's a concern for me as well. I edit offline using a text editor called Fraise, then do online edits only for touchups. So my edit count is only 25k although I've added something like 5000 articles over the last 8.5 years. Perhaps the AND should just be an OR? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's such a simple idea that I'm surprised no one thought of it already. I support it. (Disclaimer: that means I'd move up about four levels.) HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No, changing the AND to an OR is a major change that I wouldn't support. It would decouple the two criteria, and I don't think that that's a good idea. For one thing, a person with (say) five years service and a total of eleven edits would have a high level, and that doesn't seem right; and a bot (or bot-operator) with six month's service and 20,000 edits would also be at a high level, and that also doesn't seem right.
As far as the external-editor thing, I don't see how using an external editor would change one's edit count. Herostratus (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
An external editor dramatically changes edit counts. In my last major article, ZETA, I did, literally, hundreds of edits in Fraise, represented by a single edit in the Wikipedia. If all of my edits were made online I would be well over 75,000 at this point.
I agree that low edit counts over long years is not what we're trying to achieve. But at the same time, the current system is "punishing" certain patterns of behaviour that should actively be encouraged. Offline editing with single major checkins is better for the wikipedia. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not so sure about that. Let's assume that you were doing major developmental editing on an article - adding and deleting references, adding and deleting blocks of text in various places, separating and moving and rewriting blocks of text. First, one can still do this in the Wikipedia editor. Second, I'm not sure that it's even a good idea to do it in one edit. It would make the before-and-after diffs essentially impossible to compare. If you did it in half-dozen edits, a person would have the option of looking at the before-and-after versions of what you did by selecting your entire range of edits on the "compare versions" function of the article history, and would also have the option to look at single edits - say, your work on one particular section. Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
But I'm not criticizing you, and I appreciate your contributions, and see WP:PRUNE for an extended essay on why your approach is probably better.
Maybe think of it like this (I hope you're familiar with American baseball). In the typical season, the Hall of Fame baseball player Wade Boggs might have hit .330 with many walks and 5 home runs. He could have chosen to hit say .290 with fewer walks and 25 home runs, or .250 and even fewer walks and 55 home runs (he did have the level of ability to make this choice). He was famous and well-paid, but if he had chosen to hit .250 with 55 home runs he would have been even more famous and well-paid. But he preferred being a .330 hitter, and as a .330 hitter he was more valuable in helping his team win games. It was a choice he made to help the team, and the savvy fans understood this. And that's you.
I would have no problem (philosophically) with having "X number of edit OR X articles created" as the criteria. But then, how to distinguish between stub articles and full articles, and between good articles and poor ones, and between articles on the history of philosophy and articles on Spider-Man? And then what about the people who don't create articles, but advance them from fair status to Good Article or Featured Article status. We could have "X number of edits OR X articles created OR X Good Articles". But now its getting complicated, and then what about someone like me? I don't create hordes of articles and have no interest in jumping through the Good Article hoops, but I like to troll the new pages list and improve articles from "marginally acceptable" to "fair" (often in a single edit or a few edits), which is also important, and there's no award system for that.
So I don't know. It is what it is. I would actually be open to a criteria such as "X time of service AND (X edits OR (X-n edits AND (X articles created OR X DYK's OR X Good Articles OR X Featured Articles OR [etc])))", although even this is crude (what about the guy who has few edits but they are all about helping make new editors feel welcome, etc etc etc). But probably this would best be done as a fork of the service awards. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It's got to be simple. If you have a formula, you are attempting to actually rank the value of contributions - something that cannot be done numerically, full stop. With something simple, it's implicit that it's a rough measurement. So while switching from and to or might not work, you have to admire the simplicity. HereToHelp (talk to me) 05:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
And I understand why someone doesn't want it to be strict OR. Perhaps "2 years of service and 5,00 edits OR 25,000 edits" is what we're trying to say? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

service award category deletion up for review

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The service awards used to be linked to categories, and these categories were assigned to the person in the templates. That is, if you put the Tuntum template on your userpage, the template would automatically place you in Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 06, and so forth.

These were created in (I think) July, but there had been some similar categories deleted (after discussion) in 2007, and so an editor has deleted the categories as recreation of deleted material. I'm asking for a review of that deletion here, if anyone's interested. Herostratus (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

They were restored at DRV and are listed for deletion again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22#Wikipedian Service Award Level categories if anyone cares. Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Guess not, as they were deleted. The crux of the argument was "useless" vs. "harmless", and they point that they were too finely tuned (who needs to know who is in the precise category "Veteran Editor III", for instance) is reasonable. Probably not that important either way. Herostratus (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article of potential interest

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Ashton, Daniel (January 3, 2011). "Awarding the self in Wikipedia: Identity work and the disclosure of knowledge". First Monday. 16 (1). Retrieved January 4, 2010. Skomorokh 13:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, interesting, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is quite interesting. It is eye opening in that almost every aspect of Wikipedia is an interesting social phenomenon. It is a shame that far too many editors miss the point that Wikipedia is an ongoing continually developing social phenomenon (see the recent cfd for the static non-social view point of many editors). VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Overlarge edit count requirements

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments11 people in discussion

As I complained earlier, we have no reached the ten year landmark and no editors of that vintage (myself, included) have reached the lofty 250,000 required edits. In fact only 15 editors have. From years 0-3, the scheme asks for 5,300 edit/year. OK. From years 3-6, we expect 25,000 edits a year. And from years 12-15, 83,000 edits a year! Seems just a bit unlikely, no? I haven't done 83,000 edits in all my 10 years. It looks like the target numbers were just chosen as nice "round" numbers with no consideration of the increasing difficulty. Rmhermen (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've often said that since this "award" system is not meant to be taken too seriously, and since one of the primary reasons for having it is to encourage editors to be active, that we should have more of these awards at the lower end of the spectrum. As you say, there are a handful of editorsin the entire project that can aspire to the higher levels legitimately, but thousands of editors that can get up to 2500 edits. If you want to have this system benefit the most people, you can keep a few of the higher-level awards, but adjust the lower levels to have a lower threshold for inclusion. For example, I have been editing here for a few years now, but I only have 1800 edits roughly. I use the "preview" button a lot, and most of the edits I make are on contentious topics that require a lot of discussion. If I didn't proofread my edits before I made them, or if I made them piecemeal rather than several in one edit, then I probably would have more than 10,000. The current system encourages sloppy editing because of it's high edit count, and I really don't think that was the point when it was created. My two cents. Rapier (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; the current tiers simply encourage editcountitis, and the excessive targets currently listed simply encourage quantity over quality of edits. I can understand having higher tiers based on years of service and realistic edit counts (say, 10K - 25K per year), but the current count requirements simply mean I will be ignoring the current version of this page. I'll eventually either simply link to the version of this page that existed at the time I joined Wikipedia (which capped at 50K edits after 5 years), or simply create my own personal tier levels on one of my user subpages and ignore the absurdities in this page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that Rmhermen makes an excellent point, and the upper levels should be adjusted down. True, you could reach these high numbers if you are a bot. But you shouldn't have to be or run a bot to reach any of levels. No human being will ever achieve 1,000,000 hand edits.
I've argued against making any more major adjustments to the levels because, at this point, its too late. We don't want to make changes where significant numbers of editors would have their levels changed, as they would either all have to be notified or there would be some people using the old, and some people the new, definitions of the various levels.
However, that does not apply to the higher levels. There are very few editors at these levels.
Rmhermen makes good sense when he points out that the requirements for edits-per-year change too drastically as the levels go up. 5,300 edit/year seems reasonable. I could see how that go up a bit as the levels increase, but not to 25,000 edit/year let alone 83,000 edit/year. Can even the most fanatically dedicated editor achieve even 25,000 edits a year? I sure couldn't. More sensible might be to cap the requirements at 8,000 edits a year, which is still a lot of edits, giving:
  • 1 - 11: leave as is.
  • 12 - Senior Editor II (or Most Pluperfect Labutnum) – 4.5 years and 28,000 (rather than 35,000) edits
  • 13 - Senior Editor III (or Labutnum of the Encyclopedia) – 5 years and 32,000 (rather than 50,000) edits
  • 14 - Master Editor (or Illustrious Looshpah) – 6 years and 40,000 (rather than 75,000) edits
  • 15 - Master Editor II (or Almighty Looshpah) – 8 years and 56,000 (rather than 100,000) edits
  • 16 - Sovereign Editor (or Redoubtable Togneme) – 10 years and 72,000 (rather than 250,000) edits
  • 17 - Ultimate Editor (or Rocambolesque Bordonth) – 12 years and 88,000 (rather than 500,000) edits
  • 18 - Vanguard Editor (or Laureate Kipzock Inziklopediock) – 15 years and 112,000 (rather than 1,000,000 (!)) edits
What say you? Shall we do this? I am inclined that we should do this. I would like to be careful about doing this, because (to be fair and not generate a situation where some people are still using the old system) it would be necessary to go to the pages of all the people who are using the old system - that would include people well below level 12, because some people at levels 11, 10, etc. might be eligible for an upgrade - and (maybe) change their award and also explain why it was changed.
That's a lot of work. I'm willing to do some of this if some others will. This would probably have to be absolutely the last major change made to the system (because of the all the work involved), so if we're going to do it let's do it right. Herostratus (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a good idea. You can start anytime. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with lowering the thresholds; I think a real simple 10K per year would be best (5yr = 50K; 8yr = 80K; 12yr = 120K) - makes for the simplest relationships, and are still achievable with manual edits. But, if others want lower, I won't complain. Just making a suggestion, and will support whatever lower limit others support. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Herostratus (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that 10000 per year, which is more than 27 edits per day, every day, is awfully high. Maybe half that? Or maybe look at other contributors (i.e. real world data) to find a realistic ratio? HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It is high. But its not impossible. And we are talking about the upper levels, which are not supposed to be that easy to attain. Half that (5,000/year) is too low - it's appropriate for the lower levels, where we want people to climb more quickly. Either 10,000/year or 8.000/year is OK with me, but I think 5,000/year is too low for the upper levels. 10,000 year has the advantage of rounder numbers, but this is not really important. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Herostratus makes some valid points. An upper limit of 10,000 edits per year is just about right all things considered. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see anyone making 1,000,000 edits, even in 15 years, no one is even close to getting that on wikipedia, not even Bearcat.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going to actually change it, or does is have to go to the Wiki-Deity?--It's me...Sallicio!  06:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I can volunteer, though editors who have been active on this page would probably prefer to do it. And, yes, 75,000, 100,000, 500,000 ... that's unrealistic, and it's discouraging in the way that excessive levels at the beginning are. Ten thousand edits a year — boy, howdy, that's plenty. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So, are we all officaly agreed to go with Herostratuses plan?--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this. I'd be willing to help updating user pages as well. --Juventas (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. The only question, then is 8,000/year or 10,000/year at the upper levels, and who is willing to do the work, and how its to be done.

Incidentally, I took a quick look and found this on a user talk page:

 
 Hello, Icairns! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.

Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's recent. Anybody know what the deal is with this?Herostratus (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Oh wait, January 2010 - not recent. Never mind. We must have made a change a year ago, I don't remember. Anyway. In the section below, I am "voting" to not use a template like this but just make the change. Herostratus (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And/Or

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Are the awards ment to be given according to both the time on wikipedia and number of edits, or one or the other? Thomas888b (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Both. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok, because I have been around on wikipedia for ages, but I have made lots of edits on Commons. Thomas888b (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is just for edits on Wikipedia, because the community/rules are different for each wiki (e.g., de.wikipedia differs from en.wikipedia, and so on). Just my take, I may be wrong.--It's me...Sallicio!  06:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thomas888b (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I think that this page may need some changes. For one thing, when going from Burba to Novato, why does it jump by 800 edits, rather than the usual 400 with most of the others? Shouldn't there be something in between?

Second, the senior editor star is rhodium and the master editor star is platinum. However, according to Kitco, rhodium is the more valuable of the two, about $1,000 more per ounce. Should I change this? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 18:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. For levels 1 through 7, it increases by 2,000 edits every six months. (After that it gets harder, but the point is to make the first seven levels easier to achieve.). To fit in this scheme, level 2 (Burba) should be 333 edits. But we made it 200 edits, to make it easier to achieve.
  2. Well, there was quite an extended discussion before the various metals were put in - its in the archives I guess, and I wasn't involved and don't recall the details. So there may be a reason for the rhodium/platinum thing, or maybe it just happened randomly. I wouldn't change it absent more input. Does anyone else have any input on this? Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the financial value, I feel like rhodium is more exotic, therefore making a nice bridge into the fictional metals. But it also means redoing the images and likely angering the editors who have earned those awards. So I support the swap, but let's not rush into it while the edit count mess is ongoing. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it might anger those who already rhodium, but to those who will be getting rhodium I don't see why they would be mad. Anyone else wanting to comment?

Comments

  • I would say this is a good idea, per HereToHelp's reason. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Bear in mind that in addition to the color of the barnstar, the medals include an increasing number of stars that prevent us from simply swapping the images. They either need to be edited, or we say that platinum and rhodium look enough alike that we just swap names and leave the images alone. I suggest we make this change at the same time the edit count gets redone. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is fine with me. I don't really have the graphics-editing software and chops anymore to do it, is someone willing and able to make the necessary changes? Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

re-titling

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Nothing can be above "sovereign," so that has to be the highest service award.

Also shouldn't "vanguard" go to the newest editors? They are the vanguard, the longer someone has been around makes them "old-guard" by definition. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're probably taking this a little too seriously, but either way I disagree. "Ultimate" being above "Sovereign" makes sense to me. And since being in the vanguard essentially means you're leading the way, it makes sense to me that it would go to the longest-standing contributors, not the newest. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL...how about having "Wiki-Deity" be the highest?--It's me...Sallicio!  06:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose this, per concerns that an actual religion might spring up out of that, and any subsequent worshipping of these editors would go against WP:NVC. Swarm X 06:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Self"?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the first paragraph, it says "Academic interlocutors have described Wikipedia's service award schema as a way to award the Self" as the last sentence. However, if you click on Self, the page that appears spells the word in question lowercase. Is the capitalization a style thing, or just a mistake?WIERDGREENMAN (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Self" is capitalized sometimes. For instance, this may done in a religious or philosophical context, e.g. "The Self is a manifestation of the Divine" or whatever. Whether that's appropriate here I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It's often capitalised when used as a technical term. Mootros (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[Logic of Award]

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

(moved into separate section)

Why don't you folks base these levels on the practices of actual editors? They seem to be based on abstract principles rather than common numbers of edits versus years of service.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, what would you suggest? They're not based on any abstract principles, but on the off-the-cuff guess that a typical95454">Will Beback]]  talk  04:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the goal here is to calibrate the number so that it is neither too easy nor too difficult to attain. The various editors who expressed their opinions so far based this on personal experience but not on any clear statistical data. The 42,000 number for a six year contribution seems like a reasonable level that an editor could attain with some moderate but not overly high level of participation. It averages to about 7000 edits per year which are roughly equivalent to less that 20 edits per day. This involvement is attainable and thus attractive as a target. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC) diligent and heavily involved editor using the default tools and a more-or-less typical editing style and pattern will achieve about 8,000 edits a year using the default tools (with a pass for the first couple of years, only 4,000 edits a year required). It's a guess, but a reasonable guess. (And it's understood that part-time editors won't match this rubrik, and editors using bots and twinkle won't match this rubrik, and editors who only or mainly write complete articles offline and then post them won't match this rubrik, and so what?) Herostratus (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
For example, among editors who've been active for six years, is 42,000 a representative number of edits?  Will Beback  talk  04:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not a big concern- it just seems like it'd be more logical to base it on real editors. But any levels will be arbitrary one way or another, so these are perhaps as good as any.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the goal here is to calibrate the number so that it is neither too easy nor too difficult to attain. The various editors who expressed their opinions so far based this on personal experience but not on any clear statistical data. The 42,000 number for a six year contribution seems like a reasonable level that an editor could attain with some moderate but not overly high level of participation. It averages to about 7000 edits per year which are roughly equivalent to less that 20 edits per day. This involvement is attainable and thus attractive as a target. Dr.K. λogosπraxis19:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor complaints

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just a random guy here, but I find the practice of having a "[Rank]", then a rank above it being titled "[Rank] of the Encyclopedia" to be objectionable. All of these ranks pertain to an encyclopedia project so specifically denoting some ranks as being "...of the Encyclopedia" seems silly. Shouldn't they all be "[Rank] of the Encyclopedia"? Personally I'd replace "Veteran Editor IV (Tutnum of the Encyclopedia)" with "Veteran Editor IV (Superbly Wise Tutnum)" or something to that effect. I also disliked the "Inziklopediock" in "Laureate Kipzock Inziklopediock". Isn't "Laureate Kipzock" enough?

You guys have been doing a real good job designing, maintaining, and revamping this idea and I just thought I'd throw in some comments from the peanut gallery while you guys were tweaking things around here. Abyssal (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That was the idea: to make the alternative name slightly silly. But by the way Someone of Something is actually very common for a top grade. See here: Admiral of the Navy. So in retro-fitting history a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia was historically really the highest grade. ;-) Mootros (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I still like my idea better, but I guess it at least makes sense. :P Abyssal (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[Off-topic] A beer on me

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I've left a message on the talkpage of A Beer on Me!. It's one of my favourite awards to give out, but recently, it has been amended, and there are a few issues with its makeup, resulting in a message that looks as if it needs fixing. I'm not sure how to fix it myself. Does anyone else know? Orphan Wiki 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done Have a look at the new simplified code. Mootros (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks better. I'll give it a try. Orphan Wiki 13:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Mmmm. I'm still having issues... Orphan Wiki 13:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:Beeronme|put your message here ~~~~}} is this the code you used? Mootros (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that one seems to work. Thanks. Orphan Wiki 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

table for levels?

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

What do you think about putting the 18 levels in a table? #, title, # edits, Years? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Please sign your posting by placing ~~~~ which will crated a stamp like this: Mootros (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks!
Well they are in a table sort of. Could you give an example of what you mean? Herostratus (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Something like this:

Requirements for Service awards
# Name Edits Time
1 Registered Editor (or Signator) 1 1 day
2 Novice Editor (or Burba) 200 1 month

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. Abyssal (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean as a replacement for the text in the "Levels" section - this:

  1. Registered Editor (or Signator) – 1 day and 1 edit
  2. Novice Editor (or Burba) – 1 month and 200 edits
  3. Apprentice Editor (or Novato) – 3 months and 1,000 edits

Sure, that'd be good. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the table it is easier to read. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Good idea! But instead of "Time", use "Period" instead. And instead of "Name", use "Title" or "Award". – SMasters (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. (Please check.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent work, well done! – SMasters (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing - they might should be labeled 0-17 instead of 1-18 since the first is a base level. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks. No I think 1-18 is right. Level 0 would be 0 edits. I guess if you create a username you are still at level 0 until you make an edit. Of course putting the level 1 badge on your userpage would be an edit, thereby creating the state that it describes (is that a logical paradox?). Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it's a self authorizing award. By giving yourself the award, you deserve the award. Huh. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sort of like wearing a badge that says "This badge certifies that this person is wearing this badge", then? Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Live vs. deleted edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Some edit counting tools show a total that includes deleted edits along with a smaller total which excludes them. I don't see any mention of that different in the project page. It might be worth saying which is typically used for these calculations.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken the number of deleted edits corresponds to csd acivity during New Page Patrolling. They represent legitimate activity which should be counted. As well the number of deleted edits counts favourably in RfAs. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It's up the user to decide I guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
We can say that too.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I did, in the "Exposition on the requirements" section at the bottom of the page, where I added a "What is counted?" subsection. If there's anything in it that's objectionable or arguable, any suggestions for change appreciated. Herostratus (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful material.   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, done! Let's go! All done!

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

OK, per the discussion on the talk page, I have edited this page to reflect the new lower edit count requirements for the higher levels. (I also switched the metals Platinum and Rhodium, only the reference in the templates, not the images.)

So now we need to go to to the page of each editor who is eligible for an upgrade and upgrade them. In my opinion the best way to do this is to simply edit the user's user page and then drop them a note on their talk page. I created a template for this, Template:Sau. (If anyone want to improve it that would be fine.) It needs to be subst'd, so you would put this on the user's talk page:

{{subst:sau}} ~~~~

which would give this:

 

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone mentioned that it would be good to send a note to the Signpost. Does anyone want to do this (I don't know how its done)?

It's not really urgent to do this upgrade, but we don't want to put if off forever or we'll end up with a confusing two-tier system in place, old and new. I'm not sure how much work it'll be, probably a bit but not too much. I'm willing to do all of it, but if anyone wants to help that would be very welcome. I can't get it on right away. But we do need to coordinate so that we don't duplicate effort. Maybe below here, people could indicate which (old) levels they are working on and indicate when that (old) level is completely updated. Herostratus (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should go around changing people's user pages, merely inform them of their new ranking. Inform the Signpost here. I changed over all the platinum/rhodium references, since it was half done. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the signpost link. I think that minor benign edits to a person's userpage, especially corrections (as this would be, changing incorrect outdated information to correct information) are entirely OK. However, of course if anyone feels differently they shouldn't do it. Herostratus (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I informed the signpost. Herostratus (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I guess the way to do this is go to the appropriate files (star, book, and ribbon) and look under "File links" for where it's used, then use the tool to check if the editor is eligible for an upgrade. Right?

 
This editor is a Labutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, Bookmark, and Note from Jimbo.
 
There has been a revision of the Service Award Scheme. You and other users might be eligible for a higher award. For more details please see here. This courtesy note will automatically disappear by 12/34/5678. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Um, anyone want to help out? Buhler, Buhler, anyone? Levels 13-12-11 are going to be a bit more work. Level 14 took like a couple of hours (maybe not even that), but levels 13-12-11 will probably take a bit more. Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't we write a bot for this? HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I sure can't. We're looking at maybe eight hours of work (a guess), wouldn't writing a bot (and testing, getting approval, etc.) take longer than that? Herostratus (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea, but it might be worth investigating. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As a relatively easy alternative to informing users directly, we could just temporarily (e.g. 10 days) change the code for the three awards (i.e. 15 templates in total) to produce an additional box output that could looks like this. Mootros (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that's an ugly solution, but that doesn't rule it out. It would require 30 edits. How many users are we informing? HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What "we" kimosabe? =/ It's getting near done, only Level 11 to go, although that'll probably be the biggest level. Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Level 14 (Master Editor (or Illustrious Looshpah)) ... A user needed to have begun by March 13, 2003, to be eligible for an upgrade, which is pretty early. [from above]
  • Master Editor - Requirements: 42,000 edits and 6 years' service

Am I missing something? Is Master Editor for those with 6 years' service or 8?   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are. A Master Editor - a person at level 14 that is - would need to have begun by March 13, 2003 (now March 25) to be eligible for upgrade to the next level (Master Editor II, level 15), regardless of how high her edit count or whether her eligibility by edit count was affected by the reform. Herostratus (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so it's "upgrade from L14" rather than "upgrade to L14". Thanks for that clarification.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


Random notes from the upgrade

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OK, I completed upgrading everyone (that I found) to their new levels based on the recent reform. I didn't get any help, which is fine and I didn't expect any help. It was pleasant enough semi-mindless busywork. But remember The Little Red Hen. Here are some random observations and thoughts.

All of the below applies only to people who were at levels 11 through 15.

About 120 editors were upgraded. There were probably a few dozen more who are pretty close to going to the next level, and most of these would not have been close without the reforms. There are a few people who have edits near or into six figures and the edit reform doesn't really affect them, it is service time that this their dragging point.

At a guess, I'd say the people using the formal names (Senior Editor etc) outnumber the people using the informal names (Labutnum etc) by about 2.5 to 1. Maybe 10-20% use both. Few people use the ribbon, and no one or almost no one uses just the ribbon.

There are very few people displaying awards they haven't earned. I saw about three people who are way under the edit count, but I think all or some of these have high edit counts on other-language Wikipedias, and that's fine. A few people, maybe three or four, are just going by either the edit count or the service time and ignoring or not realizing that both are required. A couple-three people display awards way above their contributions, just to be silly I guess. This really doesn't matter.

There are a few idiosyncratic displays. A couple people display just the graphic with no explanation. A few people use their own code to display the award rather than using the template (this made upgrading harder and causes other concerns to be discussed later). But the overwhelming majority use the templates. A couple people display the formal award at one level, the informal at another. A couple-few people display all the awards they have earned, not just the latest.

One person actually declined her upgrade from Labutnum of the Encylopedia to Illustrius Looshpah. She was fond of the tattered old coffee-cup-stained, cigaretted-burned, etc book and preferred it to the more refined Complete Compendium.

There were four or five pages that I couldn't update - they belong to admins, and are fully protected. I found this annoying in principle, since it demonstrates an admin using his rights for his own personal convenience. Whatever, but bad PR.

Not too many people, say about ten or less, use Template:Service awards, which updates your level automatically if you put in your start date and edit count. (It would be outstanding if the edit count could somehow be updated automatically from the database. But it's not, so you have to update by hand. This makes the template not really that much more useful than just updating your awards by hand, in my opinion.)

A couple of people - two, actually - were under the impression that the Service Awards were at some time made much harder than they had been. One user says that he is grandfathered in at a significantly higher level (that is, at one time he would have been eligible under some old system, but it's been changed). I don't recall this happening, but whatever.

One user had been a "Grand and Glorius Tutnum of the Encyclopedia". Whatever happened to that, I wonder? His upgrade was to "Labutnum of the Encyclopedia" which doesn't sound as impressive... I think the "Grand and Glorious" was kind of nice and its too bad it got lost in the shuffle.

 
Old Senior Editor star

A few users at Level 11 were using an old template (see left) with an old star. I must say that while this star was adequate the current stars are much better. Thanks again to the artists who made this improvement. (I vaguely recall that there are old stars for the higher levels too - plutonium IIRC. I didn't check to see if anyone is still using those. Very few if any, I expect.)

I noted a couple of artifacts that are troubling and, I think, ought to be fixed. I note that the graphic for Template:Senior Editor III Ribbon is named File:Master editor 2.png, or instance, and there may be other cases like this. And of course, the text that goes with the file "Editor - rhodium star n.jpg" says "...is entitled to display this platinum star", and vice versa. This is the result of the recent decision to swap the places of rhodium and platinum without changing the actual files. A fine decision, but it leaves us with this artifact. It might never matter, but it could lead to confusion down the road. This could fixed by a move - I can't do this, but any admin could - but... some users display the images directly, they don't use the templates, and they would have to have be found and dealt with at the same time.

The latest Signpost didn't include the note I requested about the reform. They get a lot of requests and can only take so many. Still, this is too bad because there are a quite a lot of people who are now near to being eligible to jump a level - few months or a few hundred edits - and they weren't before the reform, and don't know that they are. I maybe should have dropped a note on these people's talk pages but I didn't.

As far as editing user's pages directly, at this writing I have no complaints and four thank-you's, so even granting that the silent eye-rolling was surely not zero, this was probably a good idea in my opinion. And now we don't have any artifacts of people displaying awards based on the old system. Well, a few - anyone I missed, and the administrators who have protected pages, and a couple-few others where I couldn't update the userpage for one reason or another. I dropped these people notes, and they'll update if they want to.

That's about it. Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of userboxes?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Duplication of userboxes: {{Vanguard Editor Userbox}} {{User Vanguard Editor}}

Do we really need this it? What was the rational for this? It just clutters up the table and does not add value. Mootros (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lowering the edit requirements - making it happen

Latest comment: 13 years ago35 comments10 people in discussion

OK. We are pretty much agreed that the edit requirments should be lowered for the upper levels. There are three questions remaining:

  1. Use 8,000 or 10,000 edits a year as the level of increase
  2. Who will bell the cat (do the work)?
  3. How is it to be done - either through just editing the user's page, just dropping him a note, or both?

As to the first question, the levels according to what I have called the "8000 scheme" (8,000 edits/year) and the "10000 scheme" (10,000 edits/year or 12345 edits/year) would be (if I have the math right, and if not please fix it):

  • 1 - 11: leave as is.
  • 12 - Senior Editor II (or Most Pluperfect Labutnum) – 4.5 years and
    • Current (old) scheme: 35,000 edits
    • 8000 scheme: 28,000 edits
    • 10000 scheme: 29,000 edits
    • 12345 scheme: 55,553 edits
  • 13 - Senior Editor III (or Labutnum of the Encyclopedia) – 5 years and
    • Current (old) scheme: 50,000 edits
    • 8000 scheme: 32,000 edits
    • 10000 scheme: 34,000 edits
    • 12345 scheme: 61,725 edits
  • 14 - Master Editor (or Illustrious Looshpah) – 6 years and
    • Current (old) scheme: 75,000 edits
    • 8000 scheme: 40,000 edits
    • 10000 scheme: 44,000 edits
    • 12345 scheme: 74,070 edits
  • 15 - Master Editor II (or Almighty Looshpah) – 8 years and
    • Current (old) scheme: 100,000 edits
    • 8000 scheme: 56,000 edits
    • 10000 scheme: 64,000 edits
    • 12345 scheme: 98,760 edits
  • 16 - Sovereign Editor (or Redoubtable Togneme) – 10 years and
    • Current (old) scheme: 250,000 edits
    • 8000 scheme: 72,000 edits
    • 10000 scheme: 84,000 edits
    • 12345 scheme: 123,450 edits
  • 17 - Ultimate Editor (or Rocambolesque Bordonth) – 12 years and
    • Current (old) scheme: 500,000 edits
    • 8000 scheme: 88,000 edits
    • 10000 scheme: 104,000 edits
    • 12345 scheme: 148,140 edits
  • 18 - Vanguard Editor (or Laureate Kipzock Inziklopediock) – 15 years and
    • Current (old) scheme: 1,000,000 edits
    • 8000 scheme: 112,000 edits
    • 10000 scheme: 134,000 edits
    • 12345 scheme: 185,175 edits

Discussion

  • Herostratus votes:
    • 10000 scheme. Turns out neither scheme produces round numbers, so that's not an issue. But let's not make it too easy. The required edits between levels 7 through 11 is already 8,000/year, so why not turn it up just a bit for the higher levels. Either scheme is fine, no big deal.
    • Yes I'll help out.
    • Edit user's page directly, with an edit summary pointing to this page and explaining why. It's true that we don't generally edit other user's pages, but it's not a hard rule, and this is for entirely benign purposes. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Herostratus on all three points, including helping out, although we could also explore the possibility of some bot doing this for us. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think a consistent 8k/year is plenty. Ramping it up requires someone who had been meeting the minimum to work extra hard to catch up, or forever be limited by count rather than time, which is what we are trying to fix. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 10,000 scheme -- nice round number, not too easy, not too hard. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree with User Tenebrae. The present scheme is B.S. and 10,000 means something real. I also believe that there should be category listing for all who claim these awards.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree about having categories, but the controlling cfd cabal is so opposed to them that I didn't even bother to read any replies to my last posting on the most recent cfd. I suspect it will be at least 3 to 5 years before the situation changes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah, the categories, don't get me started. I did a quick (not exhaustive) review of the voters on that, and found what I had suspected - the no-category voters were basically admins, and the the keep-category voters weren't. My take on it, and on some of the general hostility to the service awards in general, is that maybe this is in play: admins are like "management" and experienced non-admins are like "shop stewards" - a potential separate source of authority. And we know how management feels about shop stewards. Too bad, but enh - people are people, not unexpected and not worth worrying about too much. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Following the 10,000 scheme as discussed above would greatly increase the signal to noise ratio in the use of the awards even without making categories. This would make the higher awards more than just a joke. Making categories would then allow enabling some checks so that the awards might be checked. If you look at which user pages show the higher awards right now you'll see they are for the most part either just posting them as curiosities or are posers. One poor guy is also claiming to be an admin, but he apparently doesn't know enough to understand the admin userbox template flags him as a fake. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • 12,345 scheme an "out-of-the-box" alternative that is not fixated on decimal way of thinking. Not too easy, not too hard either. Mootros (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, seems a bit high. I wonder if there's an interesting number in the general range we are talking about. There's no reason it has to be a round number, you know. 8088 would be interesting number given its historical connotations in geekdom (I wonder how many people would even get that reference anymore). There's no law against making the number a little injoke if we want to. Herostratus (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Right, not bad either! Just thought 185,175 is quite low in comparison to a million. Mootros (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we really want to do a geek inside-joke when the idea is to make Wikipedia as accessible as possible to the average person, and not "insider-y"? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the math used in the above proposed levels. Am I missing something, or was the math wrong? For example, it shows:
12 - Senior Editor II (or Most Pluperfect Labutnum) – 4.5 years and
Current (old) scheme: 35,000 edits
8000 scheme: 28,000 edits
10000 scheme: 29,000 edits
12345 scheme: 55,553 edits
If the level is for 4.5 years, then I would expect the 8,000 scheme to be 4.5 * 8,000 = 36,000; the 10,000 scheme to be 4.5 * 10,000 = 45000; and the 12,345 scheme to be 4.5 * 12,345 = 55,553 (okay, that one adds up, but the other two seem out-of-line).
I like the 10,000 scheme because it is so straight forward and can easilly be calculated in your head with minimal thought (4.5yrs = 45,000; 8yrs = 80,000, etc) - but honestly, anything that brings the counts in-line with realistic goals is a plus. --- Barek (talk) - 23:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, for the first two years its only 4,000 edits/a year (not counting that the jump from level 1 to level 2 is even less than that). This is done on purpose, to sucker people into the system so that we can start charging them big bucks once they're hooked make it easier to achieve the earlier levels, where motivation is most needed. Once you've achieved level 7 you're probably a pretty committed editor so we figure its time for you to dump the whole wife-and-kids-and-career thing and get down to some serious editing. Or something. So given this, does the arithmetic now work out? I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake, I'm not good with numbers. Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think what's happening is that it's 8k/yr after a certain point. That is, subtract the time and contribs of the highest award on the 4k/yr system and your math should work out. Hopefully. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The proposal shows to leave levels 1-11 as-is, which level 11 is 4 years with 24,000 edits - so I could see two ways of calculating ... either 8K or 10K increments from that point ... or just jumping off to either 8K or 10K * number of years required at that point. Personally, I prefer the second so as to not over-adjust to making it too easy ... but the totals weren't working for either calculation method, which is why I'm confused. Is some level other than level 11 being used as the base from where to begin adding? --- Barek (talk) - 17:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Not sure if the math bears it out, but I like the first. The second system makes the transition harder, by making editors cover lost ground. The first says x edits/year for so long, then you're expected to make x+y edits/year, but your previous work is okay. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • 8000 scheme Sorry to interupt, but this one just seem's fairly reasonable to me.--GoldenGlory84 User Talk:GoldenGlory84 —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC).
  • Comment I like the new scheme. I was here maybe a year ago, talking about this. I think the old system increased too rapidly starting with Senior Editor III (50,000!) and Master Editor (75,000!). Too rapid of an increas - 18,000 or 25,000 in a year?? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Final decision?

Well, let's make a decision and get this done. It looks like the 10,000 vs. 8,000 camps are pretty evenly divided, so why not just compromise at 9,000? I did this, and also added a little bump at the very end, and if my math is right, this gives us:

We start at 4,000 edits/year (except that level 2 is 200 edits rather than 333). So these are unchanged:

  • 1. Registered Editor (or Signator) – 1 day and 1 edit
  • 2. Novice Editor (or Burba) – 1 month and 200 edits
  • 3. Apprentice Editor (or Novato) – 3 months and 1,000 edits
  • 4. Journeyman Editor (or Grognard) – 6 months and 2,000 edits
  • 5. Yeoman Editor (or Grognard Extraordinaire) – 1 year and 4,000 edits
  • 6. Experienced Editor (or Grognard Mirabilaire) – 1.5 years and 6,000 edits
  • 7. Veteran Editor (or Tutnum) – 2 years and 8,000 edits

After two years we up the requirement to 8,000 edits/year from then on, so these are unchanged:

  • 8. Veteran Editor II (or Grand Tutnum) – 2.5 years and 12,000 edits
  • 9. Veteran Editor III (or Most Perfect Tutnum) – 3 years and 16,000 edits
  • 10. Veteran Editor IV (or Tutnum of the Encyclopedia) – 3.5 years and 20,000 edits
  • 11. Senior Editor (or Labutnum) – 4 years and 24,000 edits

After four years we up the requirements to 9,000 edits/year from then on, so these are changed:

  • 12. Senior Editor II (or Most Pluperfect Labutnum) – 4.5 years and 28,500 edits
  • 13. Senior Editor III (or Labutnum of the Encyclopedia) – 5 years and 33,000 edits
  • 14. Master Editor (or Illustrious Looshpah) – 6 years and 42,000 edits
  • 15. Master Editor II (or Almighty Looshpah) – 8 years and 60,000 edits
  • 16. Sovereign Editor (or Redoubtable Togneme) – 10 years and 78,000 edits
  • 17. Ultimate Editor (or Rocambolesque Bordonth) – 12 years and 86,000 edits

The very highest level ought to be a bit harder to achieve, I think. So to give the highest level a round number (120,000), after 12 years we could up the requirement to 11,333 edits/year from then on, giving:

  • 18. Vanguard Editor (or Laureate Kipzock Inziklopediock) – 15 years and 120,000 edits

Unless my math is wrong are or there are strong objections, I propose that I will make this change in a couple of days, just on the principle of getting it settled and moving on, Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice compromise, and yes, this needs to be wrapped up. We should change the award metals per the next section at the same time, and put out a blurb in the Signpost. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, signpost, good idea. Who will make the required changes to the images, though? Herostratus (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
What required image changes? I thought all that was needed changing was the numbers.GoldenGlory84 talk 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The metals on the awards. Senior Editor and Senior Editor II should be platinum (instead of rhodium); Senior Editor III and Master Editor and Master Editor II should be rhodium (instead of platinum). It's just a matter of swapping the actual metal stars between the images (and changing the labels to match the metals). Somebody has the originals with the metals as separate Photoshop layers, but unless that person steps forward somebody has to carefully cut out and swap the stars. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You'd be hard put to tell the difference between the two metals in real life. Just swap the names and go with it.Trilobitealive (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that would be OK with me. Herostratus (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


I am not sure about the way the groups are structured, regardless whether an 8000-10000 scheme. We should adhere to the naming scheme in terms of a gradual increase of edits. So I suggest to have the following grades/ groups that correspond to gradual steps of edit increases:

  • Veteran Editors/ Tutni
  • Senior Editors/ Labutni
  • [Higher] Editors/ Double nonsense (e.g Rocambolesque Bordonth)
  • [Highest] Editor/ Treble nonsense (Laureate Kipzock Inziklopediock)

This could correspond for example to an increase:

    • 8000 for each Veteran Editors/ Tutni level
    • 10000 for each Senior Editors/ Labutni
    • 15000 for each [Higher] Editors/ Double nonsense
    • 20000 for the [Highest] Editor/ Treble nonsense

Mootros (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Top limit and the future?

Considering this scale should reflect a user's life-time project. I would say we need to think about realistic top limits in term of years and edits. This would help us in deciding the sequence of individual increases. The current 15 years as top limit strikes me as just a little bit too low. (For example in the UK to get a pension the minimum working years are 20 years.) Why stop it at 15 years?

Let's say some very dedicated person edits on wikipedia for 20/25 years and makes consistently about 10,000 edits each year. I can see a realistic top limit of 200,000/ 250,000. One million is clearly nonsense. But too low might trigger such a redesign in the future again.

Many thanks for everybody's forbearance and commitment! Mootros (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right, but a redesign at some point of the levels of Ultimate Editor (12 years) and above, including the addition of more levels, is something that can be done at leisure in the future. No one is eligible yet for any level above Sovereign Editor (10 years) and won't be for two years, so there's no hurry. Herostratus (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, what I was trying to say was that we should know the top level/ limit (e.g. 20/25 years and 200,000/ 250,000 edits) to work out the lower (i.e. the current) ones. Yes, no rush, but any changes should be done coherently: trying to avoid to change top levels later as they come within time reach. Mootros (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no rush. When the time comes, i suggest adding higher standards, assigning them the names and honors of the current top tier, and then creating a new tier in the middle. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, no rush. Re future middle tier, I can already see the complications, users complaining: "I was a Sovereign Editor for one day and now I am something else!" Do people honestly think 17+1 levels are not enough, how much fine grading do we need? Mootros (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)



Until today, the issues has still not been resolved. We should have clear about the structure before implementing changes, as I have said here before. Mootros (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards/Archive_5&oldid=1086388102"