This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Service awards. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
So its edits AND time... and a healthy edit count alone is not sutable to allow advance up the ladder from "experienced" to "veteran"? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.02:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I favor time AND edits both, I also get killed by the edit count, because I usually work on fewer but longer articles. Just edit count alone would encourage editcountitis, waste of bandwidth and saving changes more often than we already do... Montanabw(talk)23:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure I think there can be time requirements in it, but the time requirements are very overboard. It's like if someone does nothing for 5 years they have more importance than someone who registered later than them. Not very logical.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The service awards do not measure importance or any other "good" thing. They simply and methodically measure time and quantity. The significance of the award is up for personal interpretation. — the Man in Question(in question)19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I've always thought time and edits are out of sync. For example, I'm senior on time but master on edits, and I don't use a bot or tool. And let me speak blasphemy-bot edits shouldn't count as much. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I use Twinkle and I see no reason that shouldn't count. (I don't use the others because they turn Wikipedia into a project, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm still a reader before I'm a writer.) — the Man in Question(in question)23:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Meh. I always get killed by the time, so here is my solution: ignore the time. You're welcome to leave the time there, though. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's gospel! 4TC13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed reduction of requirements
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.
I think the number of edits required for the lower tier of awards is too high. For example, someone is considered a "novice" until they have 1,000 edits? I would stop considering someone a "novice" anywhere between 100-200 good edits. I think the standards for the lower awards should be lowered when it comes to edit count. They are conceived with the notion that new editors immediately start racking up hundreds of edits within months. Here are the changes I propose, which I view flexibly:
Comment - With respect, yours is exactly the mentality that I view as a problem. Editors who assume that since they can do hundreds of edits in a day, other users are just going to start doing the same. Consider the editors who make 50-100 good edits per month. Perhaps they make a couple of edits a day, perhaps they go to school or have a job and edit only on weekends, making a dozen or two edits during that period. Presumably, they would have earned the right to be called, essentially, "beginner" after 100 edits (a month or two of editing experience -- meeting the time requirement), gain experience within a couple of months and no longer would need to be considered "novice" by 500 edits. I see no reason to be a little bit more lenient when giving these users a right to an award.--Stinging Swarmtalk02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - I think that lower standards for just these awards is okay. I agree that there should be some gap in between experienced and veteran. As a note to the Man in Question, I think that you should take into consideration the fact that Younger editors won't get 100+ edits a day, and I'm not sure whether this applies to you specifically, but most the people who do in fact have 100+ are reverting vandalism, and I know from experience that it takes much more time to undo vandalism without the ability to revert. I tend to edit when I can, and almost never have over 100 edits a day because of school, but that doesn't mean that I'm any less important to the Wiki. I think that these awards are to inspire younger editors to set goals to achieve, and also to have a little fun. I know that when I was in the younger stages of editing I set these goals for myself, but I don't anymore and I think it would make it that much easier if we lower the requirements just a little bit. Marx01Tell me about it03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Reducing the current requirements is not something that I could be in favour, it´s like trying to reach an award more early than it rightfuly should be acquired. Like trying to cheat for it through a change consensus. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 01:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait -- cheating?? I completely understand the first part of your reason, but cheating? Who are you suggesting is trying to cheat for these awards? People commonly put the award on their talk page based on self evaluation and completely ignore the "requirements" (which cannot be enforced and probably shouldn't be called requirements) anyway. If I consider myself an "experienced" editor, I can put that service badge on my userpage if I wanted to. There's no enforcement. These awards are self appointed and frankly are completely, completely, worthless. If you want one of the awards bad enough to resort to "cheating", you can just take it. There's no reason to try and change the consensus. As stupid as it would be, if I put the "Ultimate editor" userbox on my page, it's not like I would be punished. Not that's something I would ever do. Stinging Swarmtalk05:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Some people come here with articles they've written off wiki in word or whatever, and an individual edit of theirs might involve over an hours work. Others like me start fixing typos and linking articles. A system that allowed for this would become over complex, sadly that may seem to undervalue some people's edits by putting them on a par with typo fixers with rampant wp:editcountitis like myself. However there are programs for good and featured content for those for whom 1000 edits is genuinely a big contribution. So apologies to those of you who feel held back by the likes of me, but I feel that the service awards need to have a touch of the lowest common denominator about them, and it should takes a lot of minor typo fixes like my early edits to earn a service award here. ϢereSpielChequers10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Service awards should really reflect the quality of the edits. An editor doing 1000s of edits just changing some simple punctuation hardly gains any experience (let's be honest: editors with 50,000+ edits fall in this category) but an editor who writes only a couple dozen of good articles can be considered a veteran and merits a service award just as well. I realize this may be difficult to assess, but it is something to consider. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed policy re displaying awards not entitled to
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.
This question has come up recently, and currently is allowed as there is no policy against it. Therefore I'd like to propose a new policy in relations to Service Awards:-
No editor shall display a Service Award to which they are not entitled.
If an editor is found to be displaying an award to which they are not entitled then the correct award is to be substituted and the editor warned. Further display of incorrect awards after warning may be dealt with by administrative action, including blocks.
Oppose - why not add a "quick count" wiki link in the caption of the award. It may be possible for a bot to check the awards, and leave a warning, but I do not think a block is indicated. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Keep it "frowned-upon" per OliverTwisted, with a bit of trout-slapping where appropriate. Reconsider proposition if things get out of hand. Keep Wikipedia friendly. User_talk:Happyland123 for example. Also, propose the Giant-liver-slap for more serious flaunts. Ewwww.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I think it's true that no editor should be allowed to post an award to which they are entitled—the service awards are just as serious as the barnstars, and no one is allowed to give themself a barnstar (which would be the equivalent misdemeanor). However, I do not think this policy should be enforced. Leave it to the honor system, and transgressors can transgress as they will. — the Man in Question(in question)18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Adding an unearned award amounts to adding deliberate factual error to Wikipedia. Should user pages not be factually accurate as far as can be verified?--Charles (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Blocks?! I really hope admins don't start spending their time blocking people for giving themselves worthless awards on their own user page. Such people aren't necessarily being disruptive to the actual project that Wikipedia is, and should not be punished for something so incredibly small and ineffectual. Awards are only meant to be a fun thing.--SwarmTalk22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Maybe a middle ground is best. Just have a bot quietly remove inappropriate service awards. Then there are no hard feelings. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Going to stand with the Man in Question on this in regards to neutrality. But if a bot were created for such a purpose, instead of removing the award entirely, the bot could replace the award in question with the correct one (the highest one earned). Lost on Belmont (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I really don't think doing this would improve the project in any way, and would only breed malcontent. I mean, taking an award from someone's user page because they're "not entitled to it" seems like it goes against the whole overall purpose of awards: "to promote Civility and WikiLove". This isn't even telling someone they can't give themselves a certain barnstar -- these awards are meant to be given to yourself. It's really not a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinging Swarm (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
CommentOppose I don't like the idea of blocking someone simply because they "lie on their resume", so to speak. Wikipedia is nothing more than a hobby for any of us, and all of us are volunteers. While nobody should claim to have what they haven't earned, such draconian tactics for something that is essentially worthless in Real Life(tm) seems a bit silly. Also, what about people such as myself that have edited annonymously or under another username? Not only is this unenforcible but I see no sense in trying to enforce it. Rapier1 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Per WP:CREEP and per that awards are supposed to be kind of a fun thing you award to yourself. If we start policing "fun things" and start blocking the transgressors, where's the fun in that? Dr.K.λogosπraxis05:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - I really can´t bend to any of the two sides, both have strong reasons. Anyway, I think I give a weak support for the remover bot. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - This site is already rapidly heading to out of control fascism. No need to give Nazi admin more reason to try to get people banned than they are already doing.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
(strong) Support. People displaying awards to which they are not entitled are dishonest. Awards are things you receive from other people. Awards are not taken, let alone forged by, for example, making hundreds of edits one word at a time. And of course, if indeed these "awards" are "not to be taken seriously", then just get rid of them altogether. DVdm (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, come to think of it, an award you're supposed to give to yourself isn't an "award" at all. "Service badges" might be a better way to describe these.--SwarmTalk08:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose. There are already far too many policies!!! More importantly, the service awards are not to be taken so seriously anyway (afterall the edit count is no measure of the quality of someone's contribution). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK15:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I have to agree too, awards are not to be taken seriously and strict guidelines as if it is some kind of military decoration is silly. Nobidy thinks anymore of editors who have awards, the real proof of a good editor is in their article work and understanding of the project. We are here to build an encyclopedia, awards, while very welcome as a friendly gesture of appreciation of anothers work are not this important.Starzynka (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose – These awards are really just for fun; if someone does incorrectly put an award, an informal warning is all that is necessary. No blocks whatsoever. —MC10(T•C•GB•L•EM)21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Support In light of the above information, I do think some sort of correction is in order. Allowing known misinformation fosters a culture that wikipedia tolerates incorrect information. I would think there is some correlation between someone who incorrectly displays an award to which they are not entitled and the strenuousness with which that person checks the facts of their edits. —Ute in DC (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That is completely unsubstantiated. More importantly, we don't hold user pages to the same standards as articles. People put anything and everything there that is unreferenced and (maybe) non-factual. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK15:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not unsubstantiated—just check for yourself. But I did not mean for the information to be taken as grounds for support. I was just giving the facts (and they are the facts, or at least were when I checked a few days ago). — the Man in Question(in question)16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The assertion that there is some correlation between displaying an award and checking facts is unsubstantiated. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK16:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - leave it alone. Editors can go around calling themself a swan if they want to, that doesn't mean the other ducks won't laugh at them. –xenotalk15:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per everything above. Awards are meant to alleviate stress, not cause it. I don't really care if a bot automatically fixes displayed badges, but since that's not the subject of this proposal, Oppose, oppose, oppose. — the Man in Question(in question)15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Substance over edit count
Is there any possibility that our criterion could be based on actual content rather than edit counts? I do the vast majority of my editing offline in a text editor, and then cut and paste it in all at once. As a result, I have a relatively low edit count, less than 30k at last glance. Yet in comparison to all of the "top editors", the actual content I have added drawfs them. I've found it a little frustrating that this system considers comma corrections to be equally important as 5-page articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added a heading to your section here, tweak as desired. Judging substance over edit count is subjective and it would be hard to create a hard-and-fast system like this. –xenotalk14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure how such an award would be possible—and even if there is some way to pull that off, that would really be a different award than the service award. I guess I'd say that's what ordinary barnstars are for. — the Man in Question(in question)14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Substance should be a factor. There are ways to at least put a "flavor" of this into awards? Possibilities? 1) Exclude edits that are reverted, 2) Exclude edits that affect < 5 words, 3) Exclude edits done by anti-vandalism, and other tools, 4) Count many edits done consecutively to the same article as a single edit. The last would involve someone writing a simple tool, but I'd be in favor of that, and would help with coding. (There are a few experienced editors who purposely make a dozen edits where they could easily make one, apparently, since they regularly lord their count over others, with the goal of increasing their edit count. One wouldn't want to encourage honest editors such as Maury Markowitz to turn to the dark side!) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Good god, and who is going to audit the user contribs so they can display the correct shiny bauble? This is needlessly complex. –xenotalk16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Darn, you beat me to it ... I started thinking about how to code a "Service Award Tool" ... it's not a big coding job ... a few hours ... It's not necessary for the tool to review *all* an editor's edits, just a statistical sampling of them. 100 samples or so would give a pretty fair measure of my work, at least. "Why" do it at all? Is it needlessly complex? Yeah, maybe. Smile. What *I* like about the awards is understanding quickly whether I'm dealing with a new editor or a very experienced one. So, for that, no tool is necessary. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem isn't that the awards for number of edits exist. It is completely reasonable to have such a thing. The problem is that the awards themselves don't recognize the number of edits as much as they label the person who displays them. Their names aren't neutral. For example, the award that recognizes someone having 200 edits doesn't acknowledge the person's edit count -- it simply says "this user is a novice". Basically, these awards are awarded based on service but unintentionally apply a label to an editor's experience. SwarmTalk21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Must be for fun! And probably too hard to figure out how to monitor. But that said, I think the edit count is a little high for substantive content editors and rewards vandal patrol overmuch, valuable as it is. Maybe not count bot edits or various other types of mass editing, but how can one tell an AWB edit of spelling or bad wikilinking from a manual edit of several articles with the same incorrect info? Or, do we presume an increased ability to use wiki-tools? Except that some don't work for us mac people... Not sure the answer, just some thoughts. Montanabw(talk)01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree with The Man in Question about this award system; that is for recognizing the number of edits and the time spent here in wikipedia, not to recognize the value of the edits. But, as stated by somebody else above, some editors do not make a large ammount of edits within a day, but just a few (a few regular edits due low time in real life to be in wikipedia or a few edits of huge changes each), this, or the inability to be daily editing (or frequently) and/or the fact that some editors do not use tools like Huggle (which accelerate the edit rate) make it hard (or very very hard) to reach such levels for users who can collaborate substantially and for a long time. And, as also stated above: these awards are just for fun, so I still propose to reduce the edit requirements (number of edits) of the last barnstars, so they can be rightfuly achieved better.
The Man in Question also told me that the last awards are for the editors who have done the most great deal of editing here, and I agree, but I say that reducing the edit requirements will not necessarily make eventually almost all editors (or a big group of editors) to have achieved the highest levels. This because some of them retire, or will have large wikibreaks between edits and will not reach that far. So in conclussion, reducing the requirements is a good way to find a point in the middle of all this... just voicing myself out, cheers. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, for clarity's sake, you, Swarm, were proposing a reduction of the requirements under 75,000 edits, whereas Damërung wants a reduction of the requirements over 75,000 edits. — the Man in Question(in question)21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't see that at first. I assumed, since they were going on about the editors who don't edit that much, that they weren't talking about people with tens of thousands of edits. SwarmTalk22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In fact administering such a thing is easy. What you need is a small committee which judges editors recommended to them by themselves or others (you can put a small, static criteria on those who do the recommending to frustrate trolls/vandals) and hands out awards. They can even do a bit of research by asking authorities in areas to verify such things, etc.
Disagreements with judgements could be referred to the Wiki upper-echelons like your ArbCom or whatever, since it should happen relatively infrequently shouldn't create a lot of work.
And gotta say, I sympathise with these content editors a lot, preventing vandalism, etc is very important and without them wiki would be a mess. Without substantive content writers, there simply wouldn't be a wiki.
Maybe they can have an identical list of shiny baubles/grades with completely different requirements and a more flashy outline, greater banner size, etc.
get rid of the glow. looks ridiculous. i like the ultimate award much better than the three before it, as it looks simply like a regular medal, since it has no glow. the ones with the glow look kind of weird. I enjoy these medals, and would rather they be made more suitable for display. does that sound good? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. While "veteran" means "Having had long experience, practice, or service", "senior" has more of a general meaning of "superior" or "older". Hmm, no, I don't think it would make sense to put veteran above senior. SwarmTalk
Following the recent update, one of the section headers is currently showing one Tutnum title, while the userbox templates are showing a different title.
I don't think it's a recurring problem - I've just popped over to Commons and had a look at the uploader's contributions - only these two awards were altered, both being early yesterday morning. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Just trying to help improve; I'll use the ones I made for my page.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't suppose there is a “bot/tool/box” that you can drop onto your user page that will sum the number of edits you have made and work out the time of service on wikipedia and then produce the correct service badge/award on your user page? That is, when you cross the magic threshold, it will update the badge/status automatically. Might save all the questions asked about "do I qualify if …" - and yes, I understand that these badges are just for fun and not offical awards by Wikipedia to editors. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
A crucial point ... which just occurred after weeks ... duh ... If the awards or award qualifications are changed ... who will notify all those who have the awards on their page? Will there be "old school" pages that haven't been updated? Will there be any way for a casual reader to determine whether an editor has read about the most recent changes? I smell a bogus debate going on here. Time to drop it. By which I mean any change to the awards at all. No changes are appropriate to arbitrary self-awarded awards. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for change in the policy of awarding Service Awards
In my opinion, the concept of awarding service awards yourself is incorrect. It's like an army telling you to present yourself a service award when you meet the criteria. Also, this concept of self-awarding leads to users placing service awards that may not be appropriate. I feel that service awards must also be presented to the editor by a second party, probably a bot on the editor's talk page just like a barnstar. The editor may then move it to his userpage or do nothing. This concept might also encourage new users who are not even aware of the concept of service awards. Imagine, you are a new editor who just met the criteria for the first award and the service award is presented to the editor on their talk page, what a great deal of encouragement that editor would receive! --JovianEye (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Some (many?) find the service awards objectionable and would be appalled to be awarded one. Complete removal from politics is a prime asset of the awards. As for people giving themselves unearned awards -- enh. It just shows them to be fools. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like the awards, ignore them. You don't have to be concerned with them. And you will never be awarded one, since they are self-awarded. Some people (many people) like this sort of thing. And any award has dissenters—some people find the idea of awards in general to be immoral. These awards are both earned and (by nature of not being subjective) apolitical. This page has twice been nominated for deletion, and has both times royally failed. To award oneself an objective award is not a demonstration of foolishness; to award oneself a subjective award would be. That is why so many proposals for trying to weight the importance of certain kinds of edits over others, etc., are impractical and (might I say?) ridiculous. — the Man in Question(in question)04:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
These aren't meant to serve any kind of official capacity. To me while they serve some semblance of purpose, they're still rather facetious, just like "barnstars", "cookies", etc. An official system of service stripes would put too much emphasis edit count and length of time here, which alone don't necessarily translate into quality of edits or even amount of experience. The current "system" of only semi-serious recognition is ideal, in my opinion. Equazcion(talk) 18:31, 7 Apr 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the Man in Question. The problem, JovianEye, is that many awards stem from popularity contests. I was rather amused — in being confronted in one of my rare appearances in ANI — that one of the editors supporting me stated that he didn't particularly like me. I accept that: I've been a professional editor for major companies. My job outside of Wikipedia is not to win brownie points with writers, but to improve writing quality. That's a role that seems to work here, as well. However, most other Wikipedia editors are not in that position — for them, the opinion of other editors is an important gauge of performance. Hence, it is appropriate in Wikipedia to have both community awards, and (relatively objective) self-awards. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the service awards are fine. By counting edits only, what they really do is show how much attn someone devotes to Wikipedia. A system based on quality of added content could not be automated requiring, as it would, human judgment. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all
As the original creator of this page, I would like to express my appreciation for all those who have come after and added many improvements and corrections. Thank you all for caring! Herostratus (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I could qualify for a really high award if it didn't have the edit count part (I have just above 20 000, but over 5 years experience and a bunch of FAs and GAs). Can we do awards for, say, 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 4, of time served, edit count, GAs, and FAs? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I realise that someone put a lot of thought and work into all of this, so I'm reluctant to make even this minor criticism. But it seems that the highest award should be the one titled "Ultimate". As no one has reached the time necessary to earn either of the top awards, it's certainly not too late to change it. Just my opinion.Mk5384 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Help With the Templates
I have one quick question about the aligning of the SA-novice tag. I need it to align to the center so it can work with my user page. How do I override the default setting of aligning to the left and make it align to the center? (Please answer on my talk page, thank you) --Clarince63 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Your first edit was 12 February 2007, but with just 367 edits (including deleted edits), you rate {{Novice Editor Ribbon}}. The ribbon versions are merely unpositioned images, so you could put the relevant one into a one-row one-column table like this
Well, if you want to do things the knowledgeable way instead of the lazy way, yes. Or, as they say in Bugzilla: WFM. I wanted my ribbon to the right, though, so instead of putting all the user boxes in the table too (I don't like tables), I needed to enter three <br /s>'s after the table. I like the ribbons. Now all we need is for W.org to enable the inline display of the edit count so we won't have to manually update our edit counts. Thanks for the help - it works great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It is now possible to align the ribbon with this code
I know this question has been raised before, but should there be some way of receiving an award when you only qualify for one of the criteria (e.g. edit count but not time)? I'm a Veteran in time and a Vetern IV in edit count. I've read above that I can choose between bending the rules and giving myself the award or waiting, but I'd like to propose a different solution: could there be a half-award for achieving only one of the criteria?
I'm not nuts about the new books images for the Labutni. 1) Why "shorter" book of knowledge? 2) It says "...with golden bookmark" (etc) but I can't see any difference between the images -- maybe its me. 3) Image lacks a certain je ne sais quoi in my opinion. I would help with the image, but I no longer have access to graphics-editing tools. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Part of the humor in using the alternative forms is that they become increasing grandiose. Perhaps the Shorter Book of Knowledge image could be used for the "Tutnum" level. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment, surely, "better" images can be made. By re-introducing the old once, the descriptions would not match. One of the reasons for the changes was not having long lists of qualifiers that double the users boxes in size. This was particularly relevant for the old Tutnum V-VII. Mootros (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh right, the Book of Knowledge with coffee, cigarette burns, bookmark, not from Jimbo, and signature....how could I forget. We definitely need a new set of images, and they should fit in the slot between Book of Knowledge of Universal Compendium of Knowledge....Even More Knowledge or Five Volume Set of Knowledge or something similar. Or: Volume 1, Volumes 1 and 2, and Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of a three volume set. And the color should be distinct; we have red, orange, and green; how about blue? HereToHelp(talk to me)15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
How about Concise Compendium of Knowledge followed by Shorter Compendium of Knowledge. This is the logic of naming with Oxford dictionaries. "Shorter" is about four times longer than the concise dictionary. Mootros (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure anyone would get the joke, and it involves modifying the Tutnum images. I don't want to demote Tutnum to Labutnum work. HereToHelp(talk to me)15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
No, neither do; I thought the contrast would be Compemdium as to book of knowledge, but only a short Compemdium because the "full" one comes up later. Sorry does this make sense. Mootros (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes that's right. I placed the bookmark and the golden bookmark inside the book, when I took the photo... My apologies, perhaps some photoshopping could rectify my silly mistake. Mootros (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Grognards
In the light of the recent changes that made the qualifier for Tutnum and Labutnum more consistent, the Grognards look rather inconsistent. I suggest the following minor changes to name:
If we go with nonsense (or French...same thing, really), this is the way to go. But I liked that you have to progress further to get more nonsense in your name. HereToHelp(talk to me)15:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What does débutaire mean? Also, isn't ordinaire a significant step down from "most excellent"? I'm not apposed to such changes, but since "extraordinaire" is an English word, the grognards aren't technically inconsistent. — the Man in Question(in question)15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes débutaire is an made up adjective from début a start. The consistency would be the use of following adjective, like all others have leading adjectives, but no group has a mixture of both. Mootros (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps Grognard, Grognard Extraordinaire, and Grognard Mirabilaire? "Mirabilary" is an English word (a noun, but it can easily do as a new French adjective) that means someone who writes of wondrous things, which seems appropriate for Wikipedia. — the Man in Question(in question)15:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I don't think enough people will get the reference of Mirabilary. How about the middle one is Grognard Ordinaire, which foreshadows Grognard Extraordinaire ?No wait, now it seems like two funny words when Most Perfect Tutnum only has one. I think we need English words with consistent placement (before or after Grognard). How about:
Grognard (same)
Forward Grognard or High Grognard (from Most Excellent Grognard)
Leading Grognard or Supreme Grognard (from Grognard Extraordinaire)
I really like the French stuff, especially the Mirabilaire'. I thought its a "winner". It sounds beautiful and we might even encourage the uninitiated to wonder about our marvellous word creation and inspire their future work. Mootros (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the logic, Grognard: 1 French word, Grognard E: 1-and-1/2 French words, Grognard M: 1 French word and 1/2 made-up word. Whereas Tutnum and Labutnum One whole made-up word each! Mootros (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I mean it's this hidden "gem"; its logical but you might not directly spot it. Perhaps most people will never know, and if they one day do they will be amassed... I like it for being imaginative. Mootros (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I see something peculiar. If it took 12 years to get to 500,000 edits, it should take more than another 3 years to get to 1,000,000 edits. These edit/year counts could use some adjustment. Equazcion(talk) 06:45, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a lot of people in that discussion were in favor of significantly lowering the requirements. I have to agree with them. Equazcion(talk) 13:43, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Has anybody considered taking User:Rich Farmbrough's edit count (657,959 and rising) and dividing that by the length of time that Wikipedia has been up? That's going to represent a max rate, I guess. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Rich has done some bot editing from his main account, from what I understand, so I wouldn't go by that. Equazcion(talk) 19:08, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Discrimination on the basis of the origin of edits (biological/mechanical) is not recommended. I know robots are under-appreciated and often deprecated but they should not be discriminated against. Let the best editor prevail regardless of the origin/mix of their edits. Dr.K.λogosπraxis19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Average rate of edits necessary to meet the conditions of the award in the required time
Well, I suppose the purpose is to have the highest award be essentially beyond attainment, at least by a normal human being. If the Vanguard requirements are reduced to an obtainable level, then perforce another award would have to be created above that. Else how will we know if The One has been found? There should always be another level to strive for. It never ends. There is no time when one should be able to lean back and say "At last, I have obtained the highest level. My work here is done." One's work here is never done. Herostratus (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
10,000 in a year is attainable, or at least it will be if I fail to find a job by the time I've done another 1534 edits... see here --Redrose64 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been here nearly three years and I've done rather more than 30,000 edits, so 10,000 a year is definitely attainable with current tools and broadband speeds. If tools continue to improve, connections speed up and most crucially server responses speedup then I think some of the higher new levels will become more practical, and whilst fifteen years is currently longer than the life of the pedia, in twenty years time we may have many editors with well over fifteen years contributions (though I suspect there will be many for whom a million edits would seem a long way off even after twenty five years let alone after just fifteen). ϢereSpielChequers14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Whilst 1,000,000 edits in 15 years is all but unachieveiable, 1,000,000 edits in general, is not. There are two requirements, so why assume that one must come with the other? An editor who has spent 15 years here will still have "something to shoot for", in aiming to breech the 1,000,000 edit mark.Mk5384 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I still think it's rediculous, and edit counts are not a measure of quality. I've been here nearly 5 years but have 12.5 kiloedits, which is equated to someone who's been here half as long. (Yes, I really just said typed the word "kiloedits".) I think that this understates my value - and if you do a lot in one edit, isn't that being efficient (i.e. good)? HereToHelp(talk to me)02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most people here, those requirements are extremely high (as I have said before). Bot edits should not count (as an excuse to have such requirements) because they do not mean quality, but just quantity, and some users don´t even use them. I think 12 years and 100,000 edits should be the top; any editor with such level is worthy the ultimate level (as someone said above, 10,000 edits a year are possible). - ☩Damërung☩. -- 15:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This Apprentice editor did some more calculations. 66,667 edits per year equals 183 edits per day equals 7.6 edits per hour every hour of the 24 hour day. (Leap years not considered.) How long does the average editor take per entry? And how long does crafting an actual new article take? In any event, achieving Vanguard it a fantasy, so I think I'll award it to myself just for the fanciful delight!--S. Rich 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)
Just in case anybody's interested - I now have 10,009 edits, of which just three were from more than a year ago. So I have verified that 10,000 per year can be done. Now, any (paid) jobs going? Otherwise I shall rack up another 10,000 by this time next year. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone above mentioned Rich Farmbrough. Rich is certainly on pace to have the million edits required. Whilst admittedly supremely difficult, this is not impossible.Mk5384 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
BUT it doesn´t mean that we should take that as the top (I mean: we shouldn't establish that one as the mark to reach for achieving the ultimate medal just because he has tons of edit counts). - ☩Damërung☩. -- 04:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just trying to point out that it is possible. The Vanguard Award (and I may be wrong),seems to be the only one with which users are taking issue. The fact is, that there is a dual requirement for each level; time, and edits. For example, I have well more than the required edit count for the next award, but still have not put in the required amount of time. I suspect that this is the case with many users. But at the very top; the Vanguard level; we're probably going to see that reversed. That is users meeting the the time criterion, but not the edit count. I don't think that 1,000,000 edits is out of line, to earn the highest award possible. If it takes the vast majority of users much longer than 15 years, so be it. And whilst most of us, if we do stick around here that long, will not be displaying the Vanguard ribbon on our 15th anniversaries, Rich is on a pace to prove that it can be done.Mk5384 (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In my case, I´m in the inverse situation, I have reached time requirements for an advanced medal, but haven´t done enough edits. I´m not complaining, I don´t care waiting (I´m not in urge to reach any medal) but I consider even 500,000 edits quite MASSIVE (and not necesary)
I´m not saying that it is not or barely possible, it´s just that my point of view is that a huge number of edits does not reflect quality necesarily but just quantity. Users who make few edits but large and significative ones are more worthy as (or as worthy as) users who use automated programs, bots or minor edits that get acumulated faster. Some user said before that he made very few edits because he worked on an article to make one huge change instead of many small edits (adding several paragraps, including many images at one time, etc...). - ☩Damërung☩. -- 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
On the other side of the spectrum we have the editor who made a tiny edit (such as adding a comma or fixing a typo) which took a long time to spot because it was buried deep in the text of the article. This type of editor doesn't have much to show for his/her edits but they still exhibit an admirable work ethic. Further we have the editors who make lots of fast minor edits simply because they correct their own mistakes or they just refine their edits as they go along. Obviously the latter will accumulate more edits than the former due, partly, to their free-wheeling style of editing. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This will not fix all of the problems because the multiple rapid edits can also happen due to brainstorming while creating an article, due to new ideas coming along while one edits. Dr.K.λogosπraxis21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to forget that there are users who use bots or automated tools. I'm not saying that it´s wrong, but they would get an award that someone's else effor deserve more. Also, people could start focusing in automated tools or rapid small edits in order to get a medal that's placed too high. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Every tool has its purpose. Using a robot makes for more edits but it is also labour intensive as one makes many edits in a short period of time, but that doesn't make editing less tiresome. It is actually a tedious and potentially tiring task but if one is interested in cleaning-up the 'pedia effectively one has to use the robots for maximum efficiency. As far as the editor who makes rapid small edits in order to advance in the ranks of editors, well there is no accounting for taste, but even then I think they are misled because IMO anyone who places high importance on the number of edits does not really understand that most editors don't really think that the number of edits is that important. Dr.K.λogosπraxis
Actually when I edit an article, to actually improve it and not to fight vandalism, I find the activity much more relaxing and enjoyable. Using the rapid-fire robotic tools is much more stressful and tiring because the concentration of edits per unit time is far higher than during manual edits. So robot operators may increase their edit count but at the same time they increase their stress levels. And this is, of course, without counting that the vandals often retaliate and their counter-attacks increase the vandal-fighter's stress levels even more. So if stress is to be counted as service to the 'pedia, then the robot operators perform as great a service as anyone here. Dr.K.λogosπraxis21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
As an additional example, patrolling new pages is even worse than fighting vandalism in terms of stress. Yes you duly increase your edits by using robot tools to tag so many articles for CSD or PROD. But at what expense? You get the article creators fighting back with hang-on tags. If you are human, you feel sorry for them, even though you know that the article has to be deleted. Then, sometimes you can make a mistake and tag for CSD an article that is notable or tag it under the wrong category. After that you get mostly friendly but often patronising warnings from sysops and other editors advising you about your mistake etc. This, of course, does not count the threatening enquiries of the article creators visiting your talk, not to mention accusations from fellow-editors that you are being bitey to newbies (you must remember the time when they created an undercover wikiproject, now defunct, to prove how bitey established editors are to newbies). New page patrollers must be the most stressed editors around. Now compare this to the editor who peacefully writes a well cited paragraph or creates a notable new article in peaceful surroundings. This guy looks like a slacker compared to the newpage patrollers and other robot operators, if stress is to be counted as service to the 'pedia. Dr.K.λogosπraxis22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
So it's hardly a perfect system. Perhaps there could be some sort of slop in the system - you can "trade" years for edits, or vice versa, at a fixed rate, but only so far, if you need to reach the next level. (Or lower the edit requirements. Or at least require fewer edits per year until the final three or so.) HereToHelp(talk to me)23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree the system isn't anywhere close to perfect but I never seriously sat down to think about the various time of service/edit count combinations because I consider these awards mostly decorative and not substantive. Dr.K.λogosπraxis23:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that any kind of contribution can be of equal value to wikipedia, and I don´t have anything at all against editors who use automated or fast editing stuff, but I just consider 1,000,000 edits TOO INMENSE, and it would be nice that this other editors acquire highest-level awards as well. In my opinion 100,000 / 200,000 or 300,000 should be the top. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. While I think the veteran and senior edit counts are perhaps too steep, the last three, and especially the last one, are a MacGuffin: you can never reach it, by definition. There is always more work to be done. Also, I'm outdenting these posts; these colons are getting ridiculous. HereToHelp(talk to me)14:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Like an albatross in golf, an unassisted triple play in baseball, or the Triple Crown in (American) horse racing, the highest award should be the rarest of the rare. I would object to anything being done to make it easier to achieve. The point raised about quantity of edits not equaling quality is certainly worth noting. However, in the cases of users with extremely high ecit counts (i.e. 100,000 or more), I think it's safe to assume a fair bit of quality. I find it hard (but not impossible) to believe that someone would actually take the time to make 1,000,000 edits of suspect quality for the sole purpose of earning an award.Mk5384 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the last award is something to aim for, not reach, but nearly 200 edits per day is ridiculous - particularly since I always assumed that the older Wikipedia gets, the more service awards will be introduced (twenty years, thirty, fifty etc.). I have a fairly high edit count - I make a lot of routine edits and I'm don't always remember to preview, but I take occasional Wikibreaks and I don't use any tools or make automated edits of any kind. At my current rate, it will take me a hundred and fourteen years to reach 1,000,000 edits. There's difficult to achieve, and then there's impossible, and this is impossible. strdst_grl(call me Stardust)15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Done - The documentation is now a lot clearer and also has examples. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 356° 59' 30" NET 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
