Wikipedia talk:Fifteen Year Society

Unneeded
I'm going to go on record as the creator of Ten Year Society that I strongly object to this unnecessary attempt to create yet another parallel system to Service awards. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Ten Year Society. —  Scott  •  talk  12:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to officially stand outside the window of this clubhouse in the rain in solidarity,, maybe formally lurk in the rafters like a crow, maybe cooly peel an apple with a comb. That'll show 'em for not inviting us. Bleh! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's fun, but there's something special about the number ten that makes the Ten Year Society more rewarding to me. I wouldn't be interested in this once I were eligible, though of course I didn't come here just to say that. I just wanted to remark with my two cents, that this grouping probably isn't necessary and does kind of devalue the original, plus we don't really need a pattern of five-year intervals for further Societies of this type (as has been suggested elsewhere on this page). Maybe something for, say, ten years on from the original Ten Year Society might be worth it, but a different theme would be more interesting and rewarding. The original can be signified by a nice big X. I don't know what could be done going forward. But I think we need to curb this before it gets out of hand. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

New logo proposal
Hello everybody. I'd like to submit a redesigned logo for the Fifteen Year Society. I made it more coherent, with clean lines and simpler colours. I made the 15- and 20- Year Society versions. I hope you like it :)

--Bruce The Deus (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How can we promote this? Or does it need to go to the Village Pump first? Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting an invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Hi everyone,

I've recently become aware of this invitation-driven Wikipedia society, and I was wondering if an existing member would like to invite me to join?

Thanks, --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not that formal, anybody can just sign onto the list. In the unlikely event that someone checks your qualifications and finds them lacking, you'll be welcome anyway on the basis of affection for the daring. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Awww, thanks, that's good to know. I didn't want to add my name to the list as I didn't see anything (like I usually do) about self-enrollment. Much appreciated. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks,, I came here with the same question. I think I qualify too and will self-enroll. Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too! Thanks for organizing this. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, I had the same question. thanks for your reply! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 15:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

How?
This project page describes the intentions of a 15 year society, but gives no indication of how such goals will be reached. This seems like a blaring omission for an exclusive club that doesn't intend to hurt people by excluding them. Hyacinth (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Afternoon
I only just found out this Society existed, so a very warm hello from a 15-year editor. Nice to have a little group of us old folk around :) doktorb wordsdeeds 13:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Guys...we are 20 already
So...I was wondering..it's time to start a Twenty Year Society....for people like myself who started editing on Wikipedia at age 2, in 2002...(haha!) Antonio Precocious EditorMartin (say it loud, say it here!) 04:07, 17 March, 2021 (UTC)
 * yup, need to add this! --The Cunctator (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am old and not getting any wiser...
I joined this ridiculous malarkey on 18 December 2005. Why have I not got a 15 year badge-type thingy, and a huge pat on the back and a Nobel Prize for spouting bollocks ? Hell, I've sweated blood and no one cares. Will some kind thing post the now, long overdue gong, to my user page forthwith, or I am much tempted to throw my 60 barnstars down the toilet... with my Mithril star for added effect. Bugger it all, I will crash through the 300,000 edit barrier this week, and every one of them has been a pearl of wisdom and full of erudite charm. So, there.... (although my dry English wit may be lost on some who lurk here). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you lound and clear, friend!! I'm in much the same boat! lol!! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 13:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Self-invited
I realised my ten-year user box needed an update and did so before realising I should perhaps have waited to be invited ... But it's nice to be able to sport a new infobox in one of the non-award anniversary years! How much of the last 15 years have I spent creating redirects from obscure versions of people's names (some of which then turn out to be longstanding red links, sometimes even for the right person)? It's good to be among friends. Pam D  15:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

note to all
Well hi there, everyone!!! lol ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 13:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion
Could there be a promotion of the 10/15/20 year societies (possibly on Wikipedia's birthday and other key dates).

Another possibility - the Wikipedia equivalent of Father of the House - with 'reasonable activity over an extended period' as the criteria: could also have for each different language. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On the five-year intervals thing: No, let's not. That just trivializes the whole thing. But I find the Father of the House thing kind of interesting. I wonder what we could do with that. But I think it's worth pointing out that we shouldn't get so hung up on demonstrations of how long we've been here or how much we've done here because in the end, what matters is the encyclopedia itself. We have something to be quite proud of here, and we should be more worried about maintaining that and motivating others to help do the same. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Suitable terminology (rather than just 'Father') for 'longest active Wikipeidian' - in each language/area of interest/other categorisation system, possibly as part of the Service awards sequence. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "Father of the House" might be difficult to determine. Contributors leave without notice never to return, or leave then return months or years later. Does someone who contributed for a few months back in 2001 then returned to stay in 2019 deserve this title more than someone who joined in 2004 & never took a break? I could come up with similar examples. We shouldn't need to rely on complex rules to determine who deserves the title--that would ruin the fun of it. - llywrch (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Couldn't tell ya. I simply maintain that it's less about what you've done so far and more about your commitment going forward. You've been here this long, so you're probably going to keep at it. Not merely that you've been here, but you're here to stay too. I don't even know that there's another worthy benchmark after a decade. You stay here long enough, you transcend being just a casual user; I think that's the only point of the original Society. There's no real prestige attached, it's just a way of showing how Wikipedia's impacted your life. There may not be another benchmark worth acknowledging after that. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There will be many reasons why people leave and return (sometimes under a different name), or are intermittent WP editors, there will be the quantity/quality balance (someone who makes lots of minor edits, or who makes less frequent but significant edits or 'keeps an eye on a specific group of pages' etc will all be equally significant), while some people operate on both WP and elsewhere in the Wikiverse (and other contributory websites).
 * Perhaps 'number of days on which said Wikipedian was active' would be one way of making the calculation - and 'Wikipedian, Active Most Ancient of Days' would depend in part upon the date of establishment, size and number of people active on a particular language WP. There could also be the Wikipedian equivalent of Longest reigning monarchs.
 * Anyone wishing to develop the WAMAD thought-experiment can. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hee-hee. Most Ancient of Days. Hee-hee. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Shall we say - there is a case for recognising specific very long(est) serving individuals being reasonably (if sometimes intermittently active) active Wikipedians, and also long serving semi-specialists as distinct from mere membership of the 5/10/15/longer societies - and the matter is being left for The Proverbial Someone Else to develop. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternate topicon image
I created as an alternative to the current  used in the topicon, as I feel it not overlapping makes it more readable at the small icon size. You can try it out by setting true in 15 Year topicon. Any objections to me making it the default? --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Member #489
I'm not usually in the habit of joining learned societies, but I recieved a rather nice invitation, so here I am. My arrival here has also brought forth the realisation that I really should try to get out more - or not... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)