Template talk:Service award progress/Archive 1

Text
I think the text needs further tweaking too: • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CURRENTLY
 * Currently, this editor is a Veteran Editor III (or Most Perfect Tutnum). To get to the next level, he or she needs to meet the date requirement.
 * Progress towards Senior Editor (or Labutnum) (1 level(s) ahead) (by edits): [ 0 / 4000 ]
 * Progress towards the next level (by time): [ 44.3 / 182.7 ]
 * PROPOSED
 * Currently this editor has earned a Veteran Editor III (or Most Perfect Tutnum) service award.
 * To get to the next award level as Senior Editor (or Labutnum), this editor needs to meet the time requirement.
 * Progress towards next level by edits: [ 10500 of 4000 ]
 * Progress towards next level by time: [ 44.3 of 182.7 ] days


 * ✅ Changed in sandbox and merged to main . APerson (talk!) 23:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Visual Style
I think this template needs to be put in a box plus some background color needs to be added to make it look "prettier". I'm not an expert on this "div" style, so other people need to tweak my example. Edit this section to see how I "wrapped" the service award progress template in a "div" style. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done in sandbox and merged to main . Interestingly enough, up until, the template had an odd dashed border. APerson (talk!) 23:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback
This format is too vague and confusing. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In what way? Are you suggesting that the wording be changed, or that something be made more specific? APerson (talk!) 03:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It needs some type of summary that "stands out" to make it obvious which award the user qualifies to use. I can quickly determine my service award per the service award table, but I have to stare at this for a while to determine what it all means, seriously!  The bar graphs are a distraction.  I don't have an answer for how to make it better, but I can honestly say this is confusing.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I made some ; does it look less confusing now? APerson (talk!) 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, easier to understand now! You might want to add some text to say something about the number of edits AND time must BOTH be met before earning the next service award.  Also, I'm wondering if the first 2 lines should be merged???  Hopefully some other people will provide input.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Added a sentence that will display which of the requirements needs to be met. By "the first two lines", do you mean the label for the progress bar and the first sentence? I feel like that would look a little messy, since both labels should probably be right before the things they describe and the merged first sentence would wrap around on some displays. APerson (talk!) 17:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Somehow you need to show the graphs differently when a person is way past the number of edits required for the next level. I currently have 34500 edits, but Senior Editor only needs 24000 edits, but the graph shows 0% on the top bar. It should show 100% or some value higher than 100%. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 05:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The template currently seems to be having some issues with determining the correct service award rank of the user (this is odd, since I copy-and-pasted the statements directly from Service awards/select). I'll try to fix this as soon as possible. APerson (talk!) 02:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I found the documentation confusing. The documentation wasn't clear what values to put in the various required fields, & I encountered problems when I put in the year/month/date I joined Wikipedia, & another problem because I used a comma separator. But once I entered all that correctly, it still insists on stating I'm a Veteran Editor II when I clearly qualify as a Master Editor II (having 53K edits & 11+ years of service.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See my reply above for the errors in determining level. the documentation. APerson (talk!) 02:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Much better. But if I may suggest an improvement, it would be desirable to add to the subroutine that calculates the next service level, & if either the number of edits or time served is over the value needed to reach that level, it simply returns 100% -- or is amply met. Otherwise, this template shows contradictory or misleading information. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The way I originally envisioned the template, if one of the criteria was "ahead" of the other (i.e. the criterion was already met), it would just display whatever the progress was to the level after that. (i.e. if level x is met by one and level x + 1 is met by the other, the progress for the first one shows the progress towards level x + 1 and the progress for the second one shows the progress towards level x + 2).


 * Essentially, the template was built to never show progress as 100% unless you actually have reached the highest level (at the time of writing, Vanguard Editor). APerson (talk!) 22:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with that approach is that there are no labels explaining that. It is disconcerting to see service time at, say 40% of an unlabeled award -- which one assumes is the award above -- when one knows she/he is qualified in that regard for an award several levels higher. For example, I have the edits for one level but the service time for the level 2 steps above. And there are contributors who are in the opposite situation: they have the service time for one level yet the edits for the level 3 or more above. -- llywrch (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that I should make the  text saying "1 level(s) ahead" or something bigger? APerson (talk!) 01:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Merged to main version . APerson (talk!) 18:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)