Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Laureate Kipzock Inziklopediock

Following the emerging logic that the further you progress the more nonsense the name, I suggest the following minor changes to the current alternative name for the highest level:

  • Laureate Kipzock Inziklopediock

Everything else the same. Mootros (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Okay. Also, someone mentioned that "ultimate" seems like it should be higher than "vanguard", but that's a little harder to change. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the Tutnum -> Labutnum change for more variety and some kind of Grognard adjustment makes sense for consistency there, but I think this one is unnecessary. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    Well, the idea would be that by having the highest title constituted of two non-sense words, it is more distinct from the previous four levels. I guess for one million edits we can allow two non-sense words rather than one. It's a suggestion. Mootros (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    Re "ultimate", hmmm that's a little bit too serious for me that entire "classification system". Mootros (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    Logically "ultimate" and "vanguard" are incompatible within one system. You can only have one or the other, I think. Mootros (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be quite a confusing name. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    That's the point. I've always felt the last level need a little something extra to make it special...this is probably that something. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    The "encyclopedia/encyclopedic" > "inziklopediock" transformation is perhaps a bit transparent. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    That's nice: I like this "confusing transparency" for the alternative name. Mootros (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Labutnum (Labutnom, arc. spell.)

I am proposing Labutnom as the alternative award for "Senior Editor". Currently we have seven Tutnum awards with lengthy qualifications that correspond to either "Veteran" or "Senior Editor", with some massively varying userboxes in size. In detail I suggest something like the following. Mootros (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Tutnum (Veteran Editor)
  • Grand Tutnum (Veteran Editor II)
  • Most Complete Tutnum (Veteran Editor III)
  • Tutnum of the Encyclopedia (Veteran Editor IV)
  • Labutnom (Senior Editor)
  • Most Pluperfect Labutnom (Senior Editor II)
  • Labutnom of the Encyclopedia (Senior Editor III)
  • Support I agree that a change in the English (veteran to senior) should correspond to a change in the gibberish (tutnum to labutnom). Where'd you get this particular specimen of nonsense? HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    Home made... years of practice ;) Mootros (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps Labutnum, to maintain some consistency with Tutnum? Also, for the more childish among us, heed that it contains the sound "butt". — the Man in Question (in question) 06:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sensible, may I say, Labutnum MiQ. Mootros (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I like the new spelling. I also like how Labutnum has one more syllable than Tutnum. I suggest we change "Most Complete Tutnum" to "Most Perfect Tutnum", so it foreshadows "Most Pluperfect Labutnum." HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I like your way of thinking. Mootros (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is the most pluperfect labutnum a lower rank than the regular one? Abyssal (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Top-of-the-page graphics

Would someone be willing to create top-of-the-page graphics and templates for the various awards, similar to the way administrators can display the administrator mop at the top of their user page? I would be willing to display one provided that I could put it up there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with nocat usercategory

I have updated the categories and created a unified category for each level! Have look here. But this currently applies only for all userboxes; I need some help with completing the job for the larger "boxes" and for the ribbons.

I don't know how to add nocat usercategory to these larger "boxes". The following userbox has the nocat usercategory in it (i.e. usercategory = Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 | nocat = {{{nocat|}}} ), but the other two have not. Any idea how do this, as these are not really a box? Many thanks!Mootros (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You can just add the nocat = {{{nocat|}}} to each userbox. All of them should have it. It passes the value of nocat to the userbox template, which in turn passes it on to the cat handler template. Setting nocat to yes will suppress the categories. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 173° 26' 0" NET 11:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
For those other than userboxes, add {{cat handler|Category:Somecat|nocat={{{nocat|}}}<!--So "nocat=true/false" works-->}} to the template and it should work in the same way. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 174° 33' 30" NET 11:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I could probably sort it out for you. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 177° 49' 45" NET 11:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be great! Does this work? There should be the award level category (e.g. Level 01) on each template at the button of the page. This in turn shows up in here for example [1]. See for example my code idea here: User:Mootros/test_test. Mootros (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it's not finished yet. I did a test and added {{Kipzock}} to my user page . The appropriated "box" shows up, but I am not in the relevant category. Any idea? Mootros (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If you add this {{User:Mootros/test_test}} to your page, you are instantly in a category that will show up here. This is based on a userinfobox template that I have created. Mootros (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It took a while to complete, but it's done now and should be working fine. It does appear to be working with {{User:Mootros/test_test}}. I'll take another look at {{Kipzock}}. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 205° 53' 59" NET 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe the reason why it doesn't work with {{Kipzock}} is because it hit the blacklist, since Template:Cat handler/blacklist is transcluded onto your userpage throught this template. Changing the code to {{Kipzock|nocat=false}} will make the category show up. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 209° 10' 0" NET 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Odd, it seems that {{Kipzock|nocat=false}} doesn't work either. I'll have to look a little further into it. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 215° 6' 15" NET 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It should be fixed now. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 229° 30' 30" NET 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort! I think, it's only partially working; I've added {{Veteran_Editor_III}} to my page and it's all fine, whereas {{Kipzock}} still doesn't work. A quick look here [2] points to some inconsistency among the categories. Note the different presentation in the brackets e.g (144 P) v (1 C, 185 P). What could this be? Mootros (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you kindly Thesevenseas. This seems to have done the trick! Mootros (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem! I think what was happening was that the awards that were placed on the category page caused the category to include itself as a subcategory, which resulted in an infinite loop of subcategories! Adding the nocat parameter stopped this. These is one final bit left, there are still some of the old categories lurking about that would probably need redirecting or deleting, which can be found here. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 328° 22' 45" NET 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done - no old categories left. Again, thanks for your help. Mootros (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

{{userbox | border-c = #C0C0C0 | border-s = 2 | id = [[File:Editor - white ribbon - 0 pips.jpg|46px|link=Template:Novice Editor Userbox]] | id-c = #C0C0C0 | info = {{{caption|This editor is a '''[[Wikipedia:Service awards#Novice_Editor_(or_Burba)|Novice Editor]]''' and is entitled to display this '''Service Badge'''.}}} | info-c = #F4F4F4 | usercategory = Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 | nocat = {{{nocat|}}} }}<noinclude> [[Category:Service award templates]] </noinclude>

Larger "box"

[[Image:editor - white ribbon - 0 pips.jpg|{{{size|frame}}}|{{{align|left}}}|{{{caption|This editor is a '''[[WP:SERVICE#Novice Editor (or Burba)|Novice Editor]]''' and is entitled to display this '''Service Badge'''.}}}]] <noinclude> [[Category:Service award templates]] </noinclude>


Here an example solution. Mootros (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

{{User:Mootros/test_box | border-s = 0 | info-c = #FFFFFF | info-s = 9 | info = [[Image:editor - white ribbon - 0 pips.jpg|{{{size|frame}}}|{{{align|center}}}|{{{caption|This editor is a '''[[WP:SERVICE#Novice Editor (or Burba)|Novice Editor]]''' and is entitled to display this '''Service Badge'''.}}}]] | usercategory = Wikipedian Service Award Level 17 | nocat = {{{nocat|}}} }}<noinclude> [[Category:Service award templates]] </noinclude>

looking like this User:Mootros/test_test.

Ribbon

[[File:Burpa Ribbon.png|120px|{{{align|left}}}|Novice Editor|link=Wikipedia:Service awards#Novice Editor (or Burba)]]<noinclude> [[Category:Service award templates]] </noinclude>

Here an example solution. Mootros (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

{{User:Mootros/test_box | border-s = 0 | info-c = #FFFFFF | info = [[File:Burpa Ribbon.png|120px|{{{align|left}}}|Novice Editor|link=Wikipedia:Service awards#Novice Editor (or Burba)]] | usercategory = Wikipedian Service Award Level 17 | nocat = {{{nocat|}}} }}<noinclude> [[Category:Service award templates]] </noinclude>

looking like this User:Mootros/test_test-ribon.

Edit count

Can we knock those numbers down a bit. I just hit senior editor, in about the right time frame because I've been here about 4+ year, but I'ts going to take me two more years to make enough edits for the next stage, which is supposed to be in a half a year. 11000 edits in a half a year. This rewards AWB over actual contributions that take much longer per edit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a big overhaul a while back, but I don't know if the editors involved actually looked at the ratios of time to edits of typical editors. It looks to me like they set the levels without reference to current practices. The highest levels seem to especially odd. However I'd note that we probably disagree in opposite ways: I have just over 100,000 edits after 6 years (less than 1000 using automated tools). That's roughly 1600 edits per month, or 20,000 per year. It puts me at "Master Editor" (75,000 edits, 6 years), but it'll take two more years before I qualify for the next higher level even though I already have the right number of edits. It's all a bit silly. These are most important for encouraging users who have a few thousand edits or less. Soon after I'd started I thought of changing my username, but I didn't want to loose credit for my 100 edits. ;)   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
We do get complaints about this from time to time. I am an active editor, but I don't use bots or like that, so my edit count lags my time in harness -- a bit. It's not completely out of proportion. Since we get complaints from both "ends" -- people whose edit count lags their service time, and people whose service time lags their edit count -- I suppose there's no one solution that would fit everyone's case, so maybe it's best to keep it as it is. Also, I would be reluctant to change it now. There's been one overhaul, and it's getting up to a fair number of users now, and we don't want to have a moving target and be chnging existing editor's levels, I guess. So I would be inclined to leave it as is. Herostratus (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we'll probably leave it the same, but I think at some point (4-5 years), the number of edits should increase at the same rate as time served. Maybe 10000 a year, 5000 a half year. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, so it starts out at about 4000 a year, then it goes to 5300 a year at three years, then 10000 at 5 years, 25000 at ten years, then 60000 at twelve years. We should just do 5000 a year. I'm not sure why older editors are supposed to be more AWDish or Gnomish or whatever. I'd think we'd want them to be more FA writers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternate ribbons

Should be added, they can be found here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Good point. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The collection needs to be updated first though to allow for the new service awards, otherwise good idea. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 277° 10' 15" NET 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
But also, in my opinion, they are not all that great-looking... Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the purpose of adding these old-style ribbons was to give an alternate choice to those editors who would like to use the old-style ribbons rather than the new ones. Since the old-style ribbons did not include the newly added service awards, I don't think they need to be expanded. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A level for the very new editor?

Hey, you know what I was I was thinking? Suppose we added a new level at the very lowest end -- 1 edit, and 1 day of service. Then, the badge for this level could be added to an editor's page as part of the welcoming process. This would accomplish two things: 1) it would bring even the very newest editor into the Service Award system and give that person something to have on their user page, which could be motivating I guess, and 2) it would help promote the Service Awards themselves (if this is desirable). Any thoughts? Herostratus (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good, maybe. What's below novice, new? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea as well. We could call the new rank Initiate Editor Lost on Belmont (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If this seems necessary, should it not just be called Editor (i.e. This user is an editor)? Mootros (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Everyone here is an Editor. The different ranks of editors need to be defined. So I wouldn't support just Editor. How about Neophyte Editor? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A bit too culturally restrictive for my likings. Mootros (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What will this award be for? For having joined? Mootros (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. Herostratus (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I suggest it be a Signatory Editor, (with the alternative award name Signator ). Mootros (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems like no one objects to this. I don't see any harm in it anyway. Let's do it. Would anyone be willing to do the work? I no longer have access to graphics-editing software so I cannot make pictures anymore, sorry, otherwise I would do it. As to the names suggested, in my opinion all of them are fine -- "new editor", or "initiate editor", or just plain "editor", or "neophyte editor", or "signatory editor/signator". I suppose the person doing the work could get the right to decide, or there could be more polling or suggestions.

As to the graphic, this could be easy -- there doesn't have to be an "informal" version with a book for this level, you know. What I would do is just make the white Novice Editor badge the badge for these new editors (keeping white, the color of the unwritten page, as the color for the very first level), and make another color -- green, say, or red -- serve as the graphic for Novice Editors. Making a new color version of the badge should take minimal skill and only a few minutes for someone with the software.

As the informal level "book", this would take a bit more work. but could be done later (or not at all). A variation of some kind of learning-the-alphabet ABC book might serve a basis (or whatever else people want). Herostratus (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) "A is for Article" (or "Assume Good Faith" or "AfD" or...) might work... Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For the alternative award, an image of a list of four or five signatures of some historic polymaths. This can be easily created and may look swish; fitting exactly the description. Mootros (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that would be fine. Although all the other alternates are books, for what that's worth. As another idea, just fooling around in my mind: since the first "book" is My First Book of Wikipedia, what comes before one's first book? Why, a book for the expectant mother: "So You're Expecting an Editor!" I'm pretty sure that couldn't be made to come across right, though. Herostratus (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL; how about a book (roll) of signatures? Mootros (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and began the process of implementing this. I found that using Microsoft Paint you can reverse colors, so I was able to change the Novice Editor badge from white to tan. I couldn't make it any color except tan (or black) given that I only had blue (or white) to work with, and that is the sole reason the new Novice Editor badge is tan instead of green or red or some other color; if another editor wants to make it green or red or another color that would be OK. I didn't change the Novice Editor ribbon color, but it will need to match.

Then I moved the old white Novice Editor badge to "_____ editor" (name to be decided, see below. Since the name isn't decided I didn't make a new template or anything yet. Herostratus (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the initiative! Mootros (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternative name for base level

One names have been suggested for the level zero; you can suggest others though. Mootros (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Signator (it duly recognises the editors achievement of having signed up)
Great graphics. Kudos. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Mootros (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Neo-Editor
Tenderfoot Editor (has worked for a 100 years with scouts ;-))
Tyro Editor * my personal fave
Just a few thoughts. Great Graphics! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Militaristic tendency in choice of wording (Burba) and (one) sentence, esp. for something that is supposed to be humorous

I tried to remove the militaristic choice of wording and sentence here, but I got revered twice.

I find this rather offensive and unnecessary; it just does not add value in my opinion to something that is meant to be light-hearted and encouraging. Perhaps it ought to convey to our new editors (i.e. recruits [sic.]) that the holders of these awards may assume a policing role here in this encyclopaedia... Sadly, one is not amused! Mootros (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with militaristic? You have something against the Army? And how are the police "militaristic"? They aren't in my country. And I haven't noticed any users of these awards assuming an especial policing role here in comparison to non-users, have you? Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the world outside North America, may I say. In many places across the world, police and military routinely contribute to torture, brutality, and violation basic human rights. Mootros (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about the militaristic allegation but you also removed a perfectly legitimate translation of "burba" in the Venetian language which can easily be verified by a link that I provided in my edit summary when I first made it and you replaced it by an uncited reference to some obscure Polish dialect. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Here a counter reference [3]. Again what do we want? Something light-hearted? It clearly states "are humorous alternative terms for those who find "Veteran Editor", "Senior Editor", etc., too stuffy" Why this contradiction? Mootros (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, but why not expand the sentence to mention more than the police/military? For example, during the first 25 years of my membership in the American Motorcycle Association, I received a new membership pin each year showing the number of years I'd been a member. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense to add this or even use this as a replacement for those who like to see an example. Mootros (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any problem whatsoever with the awards as they stand. They are not overly "militaristic" except in the sense that the military also may use medals. These are a harmless and indeed beneficial addition to wikipedia. All editors here donate their time completely for free and having a small amount of recognition for their work is not only just, it probably spurs some people on to keep editing. They don't carry any official status whatsoever or give the user any "rank". As to the comment regarding the police outside of North America being militaristic, it is somewhat of an irony considering that in the western world the US armed forces are some of the most draconian in existence. There is no problem here, the creators of these awards did a good job. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks of the comment, but I fear it misses the point. Nothing wrong with these awards soever. I object to (i) one specific example sentence that does *merely* focuses on police and army, rather than on motoring clubs, scouts, or what ever possible example there could be on earth, (ii) I object to explanation of Burba as "recruit" not as "soap bubble". Everything else is brilliant and worthwhile. Mootros (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
OK understood. Personally I enjoy the military awards. However for those that are opposed to them there are the alternative 'Burba' range.
Oh come on'. Militaristic? A "recruit" is a "newly enlisted member". That description is perfectly fitting, unlike the shortening of the Polish word for "soap bubble". What the hell does a soap bubble have to do with anything? Furthermore, what's wrong with the comparison to a Service stripe? Your problem assumes that any mention of something "militaristic" in nature is automatically bad for some reason. Why? SwarmTalk 03:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed deletion of Template:Kipzock

Please see here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_1#Template:Kipzock Mootros (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_1#Template:Kipzock 08:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion: Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 15-17

Please see here. Mootros (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll: name for new first level

Example from the current tend below:
This user has become an Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
This user has become an Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Some names have been suggested for the new first level (1 edit/1 day's service), although of course you can suggest others. This poll doesn't cover the alternate names, although that could be discussed also. Suggested names:

Comment - It should not be called first level, but level zero, unless someone is prepared to rework all existing 68 templates, recat them, plus copy "replace" all existing 17 cat pages. Level zero can be nicely added to the existing cat scheme. Mootros (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • New Editor
  • Initiate Editor
  • Editor
  • Neophyte Editor
  • Signatory Editor
  • Brand-New Editor


POLL

  • New Editor. Just plain "Editor" is good too. "Initiate Editor" and "Signatory Editor" are OK but a little obscure. "Neophyte Editor" seems to be just a little bit negative sounding to me. Herostratus (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (Brand-New) Editor Is "New" not just another word for "Novice"? Mootros (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think that only "Editor" may be good. As user per his or hers first edit become Wikipedia editor. I think that analogy with signatures may be little disputed... --Tadijaspeaks 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth I think that having just "editor" only for the beginning award is rather too vague and ambiguous. Given that this is supposed to be the very first rung on the ladder, with just one edit, there should be something to indicate this level in the award name. Frankly "New Editor" seems to fit the bill rather well for my money. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I suppose "Noob", "Newbie" or "Newb" may be a bit condescending or even derogoratory? 220.101 talk\Contribs 04:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a note, the label of "brand new editor" for anyone with under 200 edits might actually be discouraging rather than encouraging. If "novice" is the second level instead of the first, it should probably be lowered to 100 to balance out the gap. SwarmTalk 03:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I know I'm late joining this party, but I want to contest the terminology "brand-new". Each level (as we all know) has a formal name and an informal name. "Brand-new" does not seem formal enough, and, well, "signator" seems far too formal for the other side ("signator" is, by the way, a real word, albeit an uncommon one). So I suggest that the formal name be "signator" and the informal name be something like "chimbuko" (Swahili for "starting point"), "ankhdarch" (Mongolian for "beginner"), "vatalsang" (Mongolian for "signed-up"), "hasberri" (Basque for "beginner"), "sinatzaile" (Basque for "signed-up"), "dastehdo" (Navajo for "to begin"), "qallariy" (Quechua for "to begin"), "silq'u" (Quechua for "signature"), "ikatauhou" (Maori for "beginner"), "haina" (Maori for "to sign"), "aunfenja" (Low German for "beginner"), täkjenmensch (Low German for "person who has signed up"), etc. I like chimbuko, vatalsang, and hasberri the best. "Signator" need not be "signator editor", since the name simply implies that they have signed up, which is not actually editing. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Requirements

I believe time requirements should go away, and there should just be edit count requirements. Us441 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this. Please see the first section of this page. HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Among other things, it would probably be politically impossible to go just by edit counts. If we tried to do that, the page would probably be nominated for deletion, at the least. Herostratus (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
TY Hero, since my edits are so research intensive, my edit count in no way reflects the incredible amount of work and time I have put into Wikipedia at all! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It's supposed to be just a bit of fun and doesn't represent anything. Where good work is done, it surely is know regardless of some humorous awards. Mootros (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Formal name for level zero

While "Brand-new Editor" is not awful or anything, it's not my favorite. Discussion for this level has been all over the place, with just about every person making a different suggestion, and they were all good suggestions, but no real consensus developed. A couple of people (including me) seemed to like "New". So rather than put all the suggestions into play, I'm going to suggest an up-or-down proposal to replace "Brand-new" with "New". If you really don't like either, you can !vote at the "Neither are optimal" suggestion with an alternate suggestion, and maybe it will catch on, but in my opinion there have been too many suggestions in play and this would just continue the chaos. But it's your wiki. Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll: Replace "Brand-new Editor" with "New Editor".

Support

  • Support as initiator. "Brand-new" a tad informal for my taste. Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: "Brand-new" does not sound particularly good. Mootros (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Neither are optimal

Here, let me repost an unnecessarily rambling post of mine from earlier (which received no comment because it was made on a dead discussion):

I know I'm late joining this party, but I want to contest the terminology "brand-new". Each level (as we all know) has a formal name and an informal name. "Brand-new" does not seem formal enough, and, well, "signator" seems far too formal for the other side ("signator" is, by the way, a real word, albeit an uncommon one). So I suggest that the formal name be "signator" and the informal name be something like "chimbuko" (Swahili for "starting point"), "ankhdarch" (Mongolian for "beginner"), "vatalsang" (Mongolian for "signed-up"), "hasberri" (Basque for "beginner"), "sinatzaile" (Basque for "signed-up"), "dastehdo" (Navajo for "to begin"), "qallariy" (Quechua for "to begin"), "silq'u" (Quechua for "signature"), "ikatauhou" (Maori for "beginner"), "haina" (Maori for "to sign"), "aunfenja" (Low German for "beginner"), täkjenmensch (Low German for "person who has signed up"), etc. I like chimbuko, vatalsang, and hasberri the best. "Signator" need not be "signator editor", since the name simply implies that they have signed up, which is not actually editing. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have no problem with "Signatory Editor" or, perhaps better, simply "Signatory". I think I'm kind of with Mootros in thinking "New Editor" and "Novice Editor" are too synonymous. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I entirely follow the logic. Grognard is a real word! I think the proper English word is called sig·na·to·ry. However, Signator, I'd say more falls in the humorous alternative category. If there is really such a word, it suspect it means someone who attests the signing process (a third party who affixed a seal to your correspondence): i.e. you bear witness to your own signing up process... equally funny as being an "old guard" after a few thousand edits. Mootros (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Mmmm…all that I'm about to ramble about is unimportant, but: Grognard is really a French word being used in English, though. And "signator" and "signatory" are synonymous and share an etymology. (Latin has a signātor, which means both someone who signs a document and someone who witnesses the signing, but this is not supposed as the origin of archaic English "signator", which is simply a variation of "signatory".) I'm not trying to push "Signator" onto the formal, side, though. I'm trying to push "brand-new" out. And I like the foreign-language words because they correspond with all the beginning levels. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Just for background information and probably not the source of all wisdom... Mootros (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This is what it would look like...:
This editor is a Registered Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
This editor is a Registered Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
  • Editor Candidate (prior to becoming a Novice - formal enough; correspond to some logic, whereas "New Editor> Novice Editor" doesn't) Mootros (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    "Candidate" suggests they are waiting to be approved, though. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    I withdraw that in the light of the new suggestion which I fully support Mootros (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Registered Editor seems the best to me. It says exactly what the award is for, and is more formal than "new" or "brand new". I concur that "signatory" is the common English word, leaving "Signator" as a viable humorous version. Also, reposting an idea from above, the medal and ribbon should feature four tildes, because the editor has signed up, and should remember to sign his or her name. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    I like "Registered Editor". Very straightforward. It brings to mind the inherent practicality of this award, which all of us (myself included) seems to lose sight of amidst the forays into kipzocks and tutnums, ribbons, books, etc. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    That's it! I like it. Mootros (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    Great, put the tildes in and we can all go do something else. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming  Done Mootros (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

misleading titles

I don't find the editor track too stuffy; I find it misleading. These service awards invoke an illusion of seniority among editors. To quote Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival, "we Wikipedians abhor the idea that the amount of time spent working on this website is any sort of indication of how well one can write an encyclopedia article. Indeed, we distinguish ourselves by our ability to write good articles, which is what really matters. We ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used, often illegitimately, as a way of deciding whom to accord how much respect." Yes, Wikipedia:Service awards has its own disclaimer, but the badges do not. It is easy for a newcomer to get the wrong idea when they see that an editor they are in discussion with is a "senior editor" and all that is implied with it. I've nothing against the playful, gag names. Specifically, it's the Veteran Editor, Senior Editor, and Master Editor that rub me the wrong way because they can mislead. Kingturtle (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They can mislead. They can inform. They are a piece of information. They do not tell you everything about an editor, but they do not tell you nothing. When I see an editing dispute between an editor with (say) five years service and 20,000 and an editor with 1 days service and 3 edits, I find the relative levels to often be germane, granted that they are not the only important variable. There's such a thing as reserving judgment and there's such a thing as deliberately making oneself blind. Herostratus (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

False "awards"/ misleading titles

I'm a newcomer here, so I certainly don't want to make waves. However, I can't help but notice that a number of users have given themselves awards they have not earned, and in some cases, are not yet even possible to have earned. Is this acceptable? It seems almost counter-productive for a user to "earn" an award with years of productive editing, only to have another user just slap the same award on his or her page. 2tuntony (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame, but what can you do? It's a long-standing practice not to have "service award police". I guess false awards can help you identify to really pompous editors. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The awards have no applicable meaning. Any award an editor thinks he 'deserves' doesn't change his status in any respect. Whether a person has every possible award shown on this page or none, they are an editor. If in your opinion someone wrongfully self-applies an award, it has zero effect on your ability to contribute to the project. Just ignore it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Quite the contrary. Newcomers who don't know any better should not be misled by false edit history information. Kingturtle (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What are you suggesting? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
well, two things. One, editors should not misrepresent their history or achievements within Wikipedia. We shouldn't allow editors to falsely claim they are admins, to falsely claim they've written X number of featured articles, or to falsely claim the number of edits they've made or the number of years they've been here. Two, the terms Veteran Editor, Senior Editor, and Master Editor are misleading and should not be used (see my post above). Kingturtle (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A person falsely claiming to be an administrator or carrying any other additional privileges should have those claims removed and the user warned. Anything else they claim carries no significance. If a person is bothered by such false claims, so what? The only thing that matters is whether or not you're an editor. I claim I'm a certified idiot. Would you take me to task for making such a claim? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
A strict enforcement of "misrepresent" has been formally rejected recently . It would be impractical and senseless. It's just a bit of fun. Users must be trusted to award themselves the right or wrong award. It is a clear indication of their capabilities and competence. It clearly states that these awards don't carry any authority soever. Wikipedia is not based on dogmas. Mootros (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"It clearly states..." Yes, if you are referring to Wikipedia:Service awards. No, if you are referring to the badges and userboxes. Editors should not misrepresent their work here. Kingturtle (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The WP page already clearly explains that the awards are for fun only. Reinstating the humor tag on Wikipedia:Service awards doesn't address the issue; removing the serious titles from the badges and userboxes would address the issue. Use the entertaining titles in the badges and userboxes. Kingturtle (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • These awards carry no meaning, confer no privileges, and grant no powers over anyone. How can one possibly misrepresent themselves with these? These are free license images. That some project here chooses to apply meaning to them that other editors do not feel apply does not make the former group right and the latter subject to censure. Just look at the top notice box on the project box. It says "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous." It's a joke. Getting all worked up about a joke? Really? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm... what are you suggesting, Kingturtle? Are you proposing that people should refrain from using the higher Service Awards with the name editor in it? Mootros (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been quite clear in what I am suggesting. Maybe some of you did not read my post above titled misleading titles. I am not questioning the Service Awards or the language of the Service Awards page. I am taking issue with some of the misleading titles (Veteran Editor, Senior Editor, and Master Editor, which carry implications that are inaccurate) and proposing that they should be replaced with the playful names (like Labutnum and Illustrious Looshpah), especially on the userboxes and badges. A newer user, who doesn't know his way around yet, who is in an exchange with another editor who has a "Senior Editor" userbox, may misuderstand the implications of that tag Senior Editor. The title Senior Editor is a job title in many publications. Hope that makes it more clear. Kingturtle (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for clarifying this! I can see validity in your concern. What do other people think about this not unjustified idea which could mean a drastic change to one part of the scheme? (please continue below in new section) Mootros (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is a right or wrong award. This gets into meta discussion of these awards though, and I'm sure it's been hashed and rehashed past the point of recyclability. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes absolutely. Just abit of fun. Mootros (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be two competing threads here: about people falsely claiming a level, and about newbies thinking that Senior Editor etc. is an official title. As to the first: a person might post an unearned title as a joke or as a protest against the Service Awards, and that's basically alright; if they seriously post the award in an attempt to mislead people, they are just showing themselves to be a fool, and that's alright too: the person is unlikely to display an "I am a fool" userbox, and this'd be the next best thing, and useful to know about the person. As to the second: It is a valid point, that (say) a Senior Editor might say to a newbie "don't do such-and-such", and the newbie, thinking that Senior Editor is an office of the Wikipedia, might feel required to obey. However, has this actually been a problem? And also: a Senior Editor is also a senior editor, if you see what I mean, and if a senior editor tells a newbie "don't do such-and-such", there is a very good chance that it is good advice, so no problem there. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Humor tag

The service awards are a legitimate award for service. Numerous institutions, including (of course) the military, award such honors. Mootros has instated a humor tag, claiming that this page is taken "all too seriously". Yes, it is taken seriously: Because it is a serious page. The informal element (tutnums, grognards, et al.) is humorous, but the formal element is as legitimate as any award on Wikipedia. I myself do not engage in the service awards for fun, just as I do not engage in cutesy userboxes. Is this page going to be relegated to the "only-kept-for-a-laugh" category? If so, then I'm done with it. (Sorry Mootros, this isn't against you at all, just the tag.) — the Man in Question (in question) 19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Remove the tag. This page is no more humorous than WP:Barnstars. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with removing it. It's for laughs, but not only for laughs. We are trying to recognize editors allow editors to recognize and value their own achievements. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    The reinstatement of the tag is unfortunate. I removed it once before by saying that we have diclaimers at the top of the page already that these awards are harmless decorations but turning them into a joke is not recommended. Obviously I don't want to edit-war over this but I don't think that we solve any problems by turning these awards into jokes. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    The reinstatement of the tag was not asked for. Why was it added? No one requested it be added. Kingturtle (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    I can't speak for Mootros but If I read their actions correctly they think that by turning them into a joke, people will not complain about their perceived serious function or value any longer. What I think Mootros does not seem to understand is that by so doing they actually erase the awards as a viable system. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's exactly what my intention was. I have no problem with it being removed and will not reinstate it, if people feel it is "inappropriate". Mootros (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Potentially misleading titles: Registered-to-Ultimate-Editor-track

Please continue the discussion here. 16:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • It's an interesting concern, but I think having the serious and humorous names as coexistant options is the way to go. If "Senior Editor" is particularly troublesome, we can change it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the amount of edits and time entitle editors to these titles. "Senior" and "veteran" both refer to age or time served. The "senior senator" in the United States Senate, for example, is whichever has served longer, not whichever is the "best" or more qualified. Letting the silly names take over this page corrupts its legitimacy, and will deter most editors. (More than twice as many editors use the formal awards than the informal awards.) — the Man in Question (in question) 19:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    Man in ?, the concern is not what regular users think, but what new users might misconstrue. Kingturtle (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    My point is that someone unfamiliar with the U.S. senate might misconstrue a "senior senator" to be someone with more clout, and that someone unfamiliar with the meaning of "seniority" itself might misconstrue a senior to somehow be more. But a senior in high school or college, a senior citizen, someone named John Doe, Sr.—all of these refer simply to someone who has been at it longer. I guess I don't see the merit in worrying if new users mistake "senior editor" to mean an administrator or something. If they are seeking administrator intervention, they will soon (and painlessly) learn their mistake. If they are simply looking for advice from a more experienced user, then a senior editor should be able to deliver. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    It is highly unlikely that someone naive to U.S. politics would directly encounter a U.S. Senior Senator and interact directly around an issue; whereas, it is not unimaginable that a new user and a "Senior Editor" might. Kingturtle (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    Well, as I said, that was an example. And as I also said, I don't see the real issue of a confused new editor. However, I do see the reason for complaint about the titles "Master Editor", "Sovereign Editor", and "Ultimate Editor", and if more suitable titles can be thought of, I welcome them. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    I don't have any problems with these titles at all. This is all "in universe" and they are actually funny in their quaint little way. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    The only modern "sovereign" that comes to my mind is Queen Elizabeth II. Now calling a local editor "sovereign" is really funny. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    Of course I forgot to comment on "ultimate", maybe because I was too busy laughing, thinking of the "sovereign" grade. But "ultimate" is also a riot. Same goes for "master". Anyone who falls for these needs to reevaluate their understanding of these awards. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    As I said above: you raise an interesting point. However, is this an actual problem or only a theoretical one? Aslo, a Senior Editor is also a senior editor. He's been around. Newbies should consider that when recieving advice from such a person. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    Assuming the senior editor is actually worthy of the title. See post on false awards. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    "senior editor" is not a title. It is a description. Notice the capitalization. "Senior Editor" (again, notice the capitalization) could be a title, although it it isn't, since the award levels are not titles. The point is, a person might in theory think: "Senior Editor! I guess I have to do what he says!" My counterpoint is (while not discounting the original point, which could be valid) is that a Senior Editor is also an experienced old hand and and it probably is a good idea for the newbie to do what he says, 95+% of the time. Herostratus (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For those who would like to have this track (or parts of it) changed, correct suggestions of names/ titles may facilitate this process. Please do not hesitate, constructive suggestions are always welcome! Many thanks. Mootros (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any change. Leave it alone. Herostratus (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose what? That's not in the spirit of the usual conduct; how can you oppose the possibility of making a suggestion? What is this all about? Mootros (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
They're not opposing making a suggestion; that is their suggestion (and mine too). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Support a read-only version? Still puzzled about this. People should be welcome to constructively suggest changes that may or may not be implemented. Otherwise we end up with a frozen version of this encyclopaedia fixed back in time. Mootros (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of Registered Editor template

Unlike the other other levels, where the award is usually (not always) self-given, I envisioned these as being given as part of the welcoming process. In my opinion, they should definitely be placed only on the new user's talk page, not the user page, because:

  • All things being equal, it's not encouraged to edit another person's user page.
  • It might be confusing for the new user, who might not want it but might think they're not allowed to remove it.
  • For some users, who don't edit their user pages, it's liable to be stuck there forever even as they advance to other levels.
  • Some people don't approve of the Service Awards, so placing them unasked on user pages would be divisive.

Anyway, my question is, would it be better to subst the template ({{subst:Registered Editor}} rather than {{Registered Editor}}) on talk pages? I think it would, right? Otherwise there will be eventually be lots of obsolete Registered Editor templates cluttering up talk pages. Right? Or am I missing something? Herostratus (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if there's not a category associated with it, I don't see anything wrong with having old templates lying around talk page archives. It's certainly cleaner to have on line of code rather than a substituted mess that can confuse new users. I agree it should not be placed on userpages, but it should be explained in the welcoming template rather than just dumped there, which can get kind of clunky....and what ever happened to using four tildes? I brought up the idea and someone else thought it was a good idea and then it never went anywhere... HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Registered Editor / Signator not working

Skibden (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC):Hello all. I tried to sign my userpage with the Registered Editor medal/award, but I get the message "Sorry, you don't have enough edits or haven't been on Wikipedia long enough!".
I should get the Registered Editor, and I am sure the code is correct, because if I write 200 as edits the Novice Editor-award is given just fine.

It appears that the universal service award template was not updated to reflect the recent addition of the "registered editor" level. Ask User:Thesevenseas, who created the template, for help updating it. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done - The template has been updated to reflect the recent changes. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 278° 19' 0" NET 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It works fine now.. Thx a million Skibden (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem! :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 283° 56' 15" NET 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Signator Editor Ribbon?

Is there any intention to have a ribbon for the Signator level? EdChem (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I just came here to bring this up. We're missing a Signator ribbon; could someone put one together? SwarmTalk 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the point is that they signed up, we can have four tildes be the logo, to inform and remind new users to sign their posts. HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent idea. The white Novice Editor ribbon with four tildes on it. Perfect. It makes sense plus it reminds them to sign. SwarmTalk 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This still hasn't been implemented? I would offer to make it my self, but all I got is paint.. :P Skibden (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this? EdChem (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think would should remove the black edge, but otherwise it's really nice! Now we just need somebody to add it to Wikipedia:Service awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibden (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives: File:Signator (white border).PNG File:Signator (tiny border).PNG EdChem (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now created the template and added the ribbon to WP:Service awards. I tested it on my user page, and it worked, but please feel free to check whether I have done the code correctly. I've never created a template before. EdChem (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The code is done correctly. As long as it follows the standard format, it should be fine. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 253° 43' 30" NET 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks! Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All right! Can we add them to the barnstar medal, too? HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done I've uploaded a modified service badge that includes the tildes on the ribbon part and factored it into the templates. Sw♠rmTalk 06:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


I know I'm rather late to this party, but since the service badge is white and so that there's no overlap with the grey Burpa ribbon, what does everyone think of or  ? VernoWhitney (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. If the Burpa ribbon is gray, we should make the barnstar ribbon gray, but that's hard to do. I like the idea, but I also like the old font, with the sharper points and such. I'm also going to support the red version, for mostly subjective style preferences. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I just used File:Tilde.png for my first drafts here - I can snag the tilde image from the existing file and use it instead if that's the preference, I just wanted to get something out here to restart the discussion before it was completely forgotten. I'm less concerned about the color of the badges because there are different sizes and shapes involved whereas the ribbons just have color and designs to distinguish themselves (and I just think the ribbons are prettier, so I spend my time there). VernoWhitney (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the white version too. Makes sense to be consistent. Why not change it. Btw, I suggest the colour blue for the tildes, like they are below on the wiki interface example. Red looks like a spell checker! Mootros (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Blue's not a problem (although then the service badge would be updating), but I think I'll just leave them red unless there's consensus as to which color to change it to (I like black myself ^_^). Do you also like the original sharper tildes? If you do then I'll go ahead and update the ribbon to be white with the original red tildes. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As the person who made the present Signator ribbon, I have a couple of comments. I chose red (rather than blue) because I wanted a colour that would stand out as a blatant reminder to sign posts. Aesthetically blue might be better, but I considered the reminder / impact was more important. Also, I concur with the preference for a "prettier" tilde, but I admit that is entirely a subjective preference. (FYI, the present tilde is bold Times New Roman in Adobe Photoshop.) White as opposed to grey seems reasonable, but I would much prefer if the ribbon were symmetric about its vertical centreline. With the exception of the irregularity in the purple backgrounds of the high level awards, all service ribbons are symmetric (identical to their own mirror image). In the proposed white ribbon, the stripes clearly becoming increasingly faint from left to right; I find this jarring in light of the symmetry of the other ribbons. EdChem (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the (lack of) symmetry is an issue with just the new proposal, but rather with File:Burpa_Ribbon.png from which (I assume) it was derived. The Burpa file also has slightly uneven shading, and three similar vertical artifacts in the bottom right. If you care about them so much, why not overhaul all the ribbons, possibly with vector versions? I dislike the right edge of the purple ribbons, which as you alluded to is noticeably lighter without any reason, or balance on the left. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards/Archive_4&oldid=1136419433"