Wikipedia talk:Service awards

Updating large service ribbons for Grand Tutnum and higher levels
If one reviews the various enWiki awards ribbons one can see that, in general, the small (72px) versions of the ribbons very closely match the larger (120px) versions of the ribbons. However, the large and small ribbons for service awards differ quite greatly from each other beginning at Grand Tutnum. In addition, the award stars used on the current large ribbons do not match the convention used in attaching service stars and 5/16 inch stars to medals and ribbons, viz. a bronze or gold star represents an additional award, while a silver star is used in lieu of five bronze or gold stars. I have taken the liberty of redesigning the large ribbons to use bronze and silver service stars, as those are more appropriate for service awards, as well as redesigning them to match the small ribbons. However, prior to uploading more than twenty images to Commons to create a table (which I have started here), I wanted to know if there was any desire to update those images. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK to me. I can't really visualize it, can you show an example? Or I'm willing to trust your judgement. Herostratus (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to upload the images tonight. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * here is the transcluded table. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, sure. This looks fine to me. Anybody have any objections? Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. No objections. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a preference? I like the striped ribbons since they match the small ones. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I get it, we're 1) assuming the small ribbons are to stay as is, and 2) looking at two possible versions for the large ribbon. OK. Well, they're both good... the idea of matching the small ribbons is a virtue, but the other version is nice in a different way. Can't decide! Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jkudlick, Thanks for doing this. It's an improvement in most places. However, I think it really needs a little bit more work! Basically, the design is inconsistent with the naming scheme. For instance "Senior Editor" has four (dark) stars and the next level SE 2 has one (bright) star. A more logical choice would be to keep the groups together, but differentiate clearly between groups while keeping the number of star relatively low. So, Senior Editor: 1 star, SE2: 2 stars, SE3: 3 stars. Followed by Master Editor: 1 star -- ME 4: stars but use thin gold colour marking around the purple or something like this.

For Grandmaster Editor and above, I am not happy that the wheels are supposed to be replaced. What is wrong with the current design? The solution you are proposing for the top three levels is not very elegant and makes these levels indistinct from the levels below. The current design really reflects the naming. Please don't change these. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you go to WP:RIBBONS, you will notice that the vast majority of small ribbons match the large ribbons. The stars I used follow the convention used by service stars where one silver star is used in lieu of five bronze stars, and the striped versions match the smaller ribbons. I think the ribbon designs for Senior Editor and above could be reworked. I will probably do that and re-upload new striped versions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to answer your question about the ship's wheels. Right now, I'm on my phone, and the three ribbons are literally indistinguishable; they are even hard to tell apart on a PC screen. The point of the ribbon is to easily tell what award is represented, so that is why I feel they need to be changed. Not many editors legitimately hold the title of Grandmaster or GM FC, and I don't think there are any legitimate Vanguards, so there won't be too many images being changed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, this is something from the US forces. I think that's the problem why it seems to make no sense. It's not widely known and there is no apparent link to Wikipedia. Why can we not have something more creative, rather than following something obscure as a uniformed US services?
 * Yes, I agree there is no point changing the wheels as almost no one legitimately uses them at the moment. Yes, in the long run we can make them more distinguishable. This could easily be done be having a silver wheel for the top level and possibly only two wheels for lower levels. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Veteran_Editor_Ribbon_2_wheels.png Mootros (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the use of the service stars is US-centric, which is part of the reason I prefer the stripes. I recall seeing ribbons with one, two, and three wheels somewhere, and I think those would certainly be distinguishable enough from each other for the top three levels. I can try to make smaller versions of those in lieu of the current striped ones, and I'll eventually make SVGs of all the ribbons. I'm considering different color schemes for the Veteran, Senior, and Master levels. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. This sounds great! To be honest I think the lower levels might needs some overhaul too. They look quite scruffy. I very much like the idea of different colours to denote groups. I think you could also combine two colours; the trick would be to have subtle difference/ i.e. shades of different colours for each levels that nonetheless are still clearly distinguishable. This would avoid a potential clash of colours and possible circus look ;-). I trust your judgement; from what you already designed its looks very neat. Cheers! Mootros (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll start working on them later, but I think converting the lower levels to SVG will do a lot to help them look cleaner, but given what has been discussed already, I may begin a larger overhaul. I'll be sure to post the results here before making changes to the service award templates and pages. There is no need to worry about a "circus look;" I have an interest in heraldry and vexillology, both of which also believe that simpler is usually better. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is an updated table. I have converted all of the larger ribbons to SVGs with updated designs and proposed names for the higher levels to kind of match the Grandmaster First Class name. I'm not sure why the PNG preview for the Registered Editor ribbons renders that way, but if you look at the original file you can see what I thought I had uploaded; that first level may require a total redesign if SVGs are to be used. I changed the ribbon colors for the Yeoman and Experienced levels to match Journeyman, since it seems somewhat more rational to me. As always, feel free to comment. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, excellent work! I can see your approach certainly is elegance through a clear and simple design. Two minor points: The light blue for "Apprentice Editor" looks slightly out of place now. I think gold without any dot might be a more logical choice, which will also mirror the sequence between "Veteran Editor" and "Veteran Editor II". The second point, I think the different strip colours between "Veteran Editor II-IV" and the "Senior Editors" is back to front. I feel it might be better to have "silver" strips first and than the "gold" strips. This type of colour progression would then also mirror the sequence between the silver of the "Novice Editor" and gold above, as well as the silver stars and gold wheels. Apart from that almost perfect, IMHO! Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * About the changes in names. I suggested two simple name changes for the lower levels for better consistency. The was not welcomed by one editor. I am happy to have the names reviewed and altered, but I suggest to do this separately from the ribbon design. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very nice @Jkudlick! My final comment: To advance your concept of minimalism further, it might be worthwhile to check and possibly fine tune the key colours: Sliver, Gold, Purple. I think, if we have three basic colours (ignoring the red for the tildes), it might further improve the overall appearance and consistency. What I am saying is, you might want to try matching the reappearance of the colours: i.e. the gold of the Apprentice and Journeymen could reappear in the strips of Senior Editors. I think, this slightly darker tone of gold might give more elegance than the brighter yellow and of course links the different levels. Similar the silver of the dots could be identical to the silver of strips and stars, but it possibly already is. See what it looks like; it might make the difference to be top-notch. Cheers, Mootros (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made the stripes on the Senior Editor levels and the ship's wheels on the GM/Vanguard levels darker to match the bronze gold of the lower levels (though I kind of like the brighter gold on the wheels). I also matched the silver of the Registered/Novice levels to the silver used at all other levels, and made the tildes and incremental stripes purple. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! Yes, maybe revert to the brighter gold for the wheels; it might give a bit of extra contrast for the top levels. I like the purple tildes! Mootros (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'll begin working on the smaller ribbons later. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll adjust the sizes of the SVGs later tonight - I had read that 218x60 was optimal for making SVGs of ribbon bars, but it seems that Wikipedia ribbons are proportionately 20% taller than that. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These look fine to me. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've updated the SVGs per the comments above. If these are acceptable to everyone, I will make the necessary adjustments to any templates and to the small ribbons so that they match the larger ribbons. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Small ribbons are done. I've just noticed that the medal images for the first six levels will probably need updating if they are to remain visually similar to these new ribbon bars. I do not have the necessary graphics software to make those changes. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll deal with the change, as long as the old versions are retained so they can still be displayed, including by those who currently do so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? There's no need to retain the old versions. We just load the new images over the old ones, right? We don't want or need two or more versions of the same thing to be be extant, right? Herostratus (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, no point in a parallel scheme. Everything will properly display as images are updated. Mootros (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the "old" ones and allow editors the choice, or, maybe just "go back" to the original ones. Several editors did a good faith project here, but, for me at least, the new approach kind of lessens the fun of seeing these ribbons on user pages. The "older" ones come across to me as colorful, festive, and brighter. These new ribbons have a World War II look. Was this change on rfc, or other noticeboards? Thanks. Randy Kryn 02:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only notices that I saw on any templates prompted discussion here, and not at any other noticeboards. There is no requirement for a formal RfC, so I began discussion here regarding the mismatch between the small and large ribbons. I saw that I was getting comments from editors who helped create this system years ago who supported the idea and liked the way I was designing the ribbons, so I took the ball and ran with it. If you wish to begin a formal RfC, I will gladly participate and abide by the results.
 * Regarding whether to display the old ribbons - that is of course one's own choice. There is a real-world history of being allowed to choose whether to display an award which was superseded or the new award, but once the recipient began displaying the new award, they were not allowed to display the old one. I have no problem if others choose to display the older awards. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being late to the discussion, but I just noticed that this change was implemented, and I dislike it. The old color scheme looked better and differentiated each level, in addition to looking like "real" ribbons and not some computer-generated shapes that we now have. It would be nice if the templates for the awards included parameters that allows for the choice between the new and old designs, maybe with the new designs as the default.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 00:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't quite happy with how the large ribbons looked, so I added shadows to give depth. I will do the same to the small ribbons in the coming week. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 21:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Building a level 23 service award
Okay, it's getting to be that time again. The service time for the level 23 service award (22 years) is coming up in less than 6 months, so we should start getting on this. As always, please feel free to start building templates, adding images, and proposing any updates or changes in the discussion below.

We were running out of room for a sixth ship's wheel on our purple ribbon, so I thought a move to acorns on a green ribbon would be an interesting development to tide us over for the next decade or so of ribbons. I adaptated User:Sm8900's suggestion above for the name of "Sagacious Editor" on this new level. For the alternate name, "Ephoros" is ancient Greek for "overseer", and was an office in Spartan society, and "Overseer of the Encyclopedia" seemed like an appropriate appellation.

As always, looking forward to seeing what others come up with for some of these other awards. Some resources for the Sagacious Editor template are the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles, category:Exotic matter, and real chemical elements, as we did with the Meitnerium star on level 22. I don't know if we want to keep the library map/QR code for the Ephoros level, but I'm sure someone will do it justice. I have started the 15k edits/year rate to build us up to 250,000 at 25 years for a special level 25 award in three years. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 06:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * hi there. I'm so glad that my idea was above was useful. thanks for your note! I like your ribbon above as an initial design. in my opinion, it needs more insignia for higher rank. the abstract design is very elegant, but I think that what we want here is something that conveys high and prominent rank more clearly
 * I would suggest that we use the usual symbols that are generally used to indicate higher rank, in relevant fields. So therefore we could perhaps adapt insignia of high rank that are already regularly used by uniformed services. I would suggest, we look at possible options, such as laurel wreaths, or stars, or ceremonial bars, or crossed maces, or anything that is conventionally used to denote higher rank. I appreciate your great idea in initiating this topic. thanks! ---Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we use the usual symbols that are generally used to indicate higher rank, in relevant fields. So therefore we could perhaps adapt insignia of high rank that are already regularly used by uniformed services. I would suggest, we look at possible options, such as laurel wreaths, or stars, or ceremonial bars, or crossed maces, or anything that is conventionally used to denote higher rank. I appreciate your great idea in initiating this topic. thanks! ---Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I actually think this would be a good to to start going from 2 year incriments to 5 year incriments and not have another service award until we reach year 25. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * My only issue is that these awards aren't really for any individual editors that might achieve them. It's such a rarefied group of editors who can make it to this sort of edit count. It really is more a celebration of Wikipedia that we would continue making these awards at this level, so why limit ourselves? VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The acorn was intended as a direct parallel to the plant parts (leaves, lotus flowers, etc.) used across the world around the O-4 / O-5 rank. Stars and bars were both used at lower levels in the service awards, so those would be too confusing to go back to. But I'll take a look at laurel wreath and mace SVGs, and see if I can't find an appropriate one to mock up to see how they look at ribbon size. The "crossed maces" made me think about the keys on the Vatican coat of arms, so I think keys of knowledge might be a really good symbolism to try out as well. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of using acorns, as it can more easily be replicated across the ribbon as the levels increase. With my greatly limited artistic ability, I already added keys to the Level 18+ Administrative Service Awards, so using keys for editor service awards could introduce some level of confusion. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are keeping these awards, then yes, I think that this acorn design is a nice one. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the acorn too, and the colors. Thanks for the work. The names are OK too, probably there's nothing a whole lot BETTER anyway. Someone would have to make the graphic eventually, the current level of quality is beyond my skill. As to the metal, sheesh... really anything would be OK. Dilithium would be good IMO. Kryptonite I like also. Femium would be a nod to the ladies. Really there's lots of good choices. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I now have images for all of the awards, but I am certainly not wedded to them.
 * I made the medal from scratch, using the File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.svg and then fiddling around in Inkscape until I ended up with something that looked like embossed red leather. The Wikimedia SVG rendering engine didn't handle the layers appropriately (it's a known issue I've run into before), so I just uploaded a PNG rendering. I'd be happy to share the SVG file if anyone wants to work on improving that image any, but I think I finally have a pretty good stellated dodecahedron for the middle now.
 * The Ephoros award is still using the library map/QR code. I added a magnifying glass and enlarged the map and cardboard tube inside the rim. Please please please make a new image and update the template if you have an idea for something else for this award. I feel like my heart really isn't in it trying to make something worthy. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 01:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nice, as Borat would say. I mentally took out the word "Editor" in its second use when it confused me as to what the editor is named and which element is which star, but a slight edit would solve that. This seems good so far, and the magnifying glass seems a perfect addition because its symbolism can be experienced quite a few ways. Nice touch. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is fine work. For my part, I'd recommend that you go ahead and publish it. Or you can wait for more input -- no hurry. Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Inkscape is known to produce suboptimal SVG code, and different browsers may not render an SVG the same way (I'm looking at you, Microsoft). I usually just use a text editor when I work on SVGs. If you want to email the SVG code to me, I'll see what I can do. I concur with Herostratus that you can publish what you have now. I'll work on updating Service Awards and associated templates when they are live. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done a lot of text editor SVG code as well (see all the small file sizes at commons:category:Japanese braille for example). I ran into the same masking issue when I was working on a javascript tartan generator. But yeah, I'm well aware of the cruft that comes with Inkscape SVG code, although this complex an image definitely falls well outside my ability to hand craft. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 02:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

At this rate, we should just go ahead and start planning for an award for editors who have 410,000 edits and 44 years of service. BD2412 T 02:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, 22 years of Wikipedia is coming up in January. So that's kind of the natural cap on these... VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 02:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At a new benchmark of 15,000 a year, for at least five years in a row - but is that the limit in order to get to 250,000 at the 25-year mark or will it continue? - the 44 year mark would be 580,000 unless it cuts back to 10,000 a year after the 10,000 a year average is reached at 25. When the new award is published expect some blowback on the great increase in expected service, but you don't want to make it too easy to climb Everest as it gets steeper and harder the higher you get. On this new one, I'm really liking the choice of descriptive words. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, you know what? We could just stop raising the edit counts. I mean if you've got 132,000 edits, you've earned a rest I think.

I originally made the edit count requirements too high I think. If you're doing machine edits, it doesn't matter, but if you're doing manual edits... man, that is a lot of editing, constant editing.

We did have a reform a few years back where we dropped the edit requirements for the very highest levels. It only affected like IDK 20-30 people, who got bumped up a level. I went to each one and updated their status and explained the deal, which was a few hours work I guess. It's way way too late to reform any levels below the very few highest, you'd be dealing with hundreds of people and bothering and confusing them over what after all is a toy.

However, for the new level, and possibly the top level or top two levels below that... we are a wiki, we can do what we want, do whatever best serves the project. So, currently, we have these top levels:


 * 1) Vanguard, 132,000 edits, 16 years
 * 2) Senior Vanguard, 150,000 edits, 18 years
 * 3) Ultimate Vanguard, 175,000 edits, 20 years
 * 4) [New Level], ? edits, 22 years

But how about this instead:


 * 1) Vanguard, 132,000 edits, 16 years
 * 2) Senior Vanguard, 132,000 edits, 18 years
 * 3) Ultimate Vanguard, 132,000 edits, 20 years
 * 4) [New Level], 132,000 edits, 22 years

I mean sheesh, you've made 132,000 edits. 22 years, if you started when you were 50 you're 72 now. I think you've earned the right to drift forward with just the passage of time at this point. I mean we are not taskmasters here. We don't need an 80 year old editor being like "fuck, I need 10,000 more to get the next level." (Yeah I know, but some people are obsessive, after all.) In other fields old distinguished persons collect honorary degrees and Medals of Freedom and Nobel Prizes etc even if they're not contributing anymore.

If for some reason we wanted a progression of edits, we could tune it way down:


 * 1) Vanguard, 132,000 edits, 16 years
 * 2) Senior Vanguard, 136,000 edits, 18 years
 * 3) Ultimate Vanguard, 140,000 edits, 20 years
 * 4) [New Level], 144,000 edits, 22 years

(Incidentally, off topic fun fact, did you know that the Service Awards take no account any end time and in fact you can progress even if you're dead. I recently went to a deceased editors talk page, noted his current level, and what his new levels will be as the years progress (he had like 200,000 edits). Why not?)

Thoughts? Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ageist comment alert above, boo, a very very tiny trout for (or not, had a minnow sized trout but threw it back in). People 80 and above who edit have a great hobby and, more importantly, a long view and memories of the "good ole days" when record players and dial phones played a huge part in advancing society. Better to give them a 10,000 more edit goal at 80 than not. May I present the great and esteemed  who died recently at 90, started editing when he was 73, and was well over 100,000 edits. He loved Wikipedia, and loved to edit it. There are probably thousands of potentially really good editors living in nursing homes and old age trailer parks who would love to have their attention turned to Wikipedia and how to do it. I'd suggested to  that the Foundation should fund Wikipedians-in-residence for, say, two or three months at places like The Villages in Florida in the U.S. I met someone, a revered retired professor in his subject at a local university, and he went on and on about his specialty, teaching me about it. I was in a little hurry at the time, so I want to go back when I'm in his neighborhood and have a Wikipedia talk. This got long, but that's okay this time. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, those are good ideas . Retired people generally would make excellent editors I think because 1) they are more likely to have the time, 2) are probably experienced and knowledgeable and have perspective about many things by now, and 3) are not jejune and are less likely to get into stupid snark wars with other editors etc, I suppose. A lot of people in their seventies and up are still working, but, say one of the law partners is 82, you're going to allow for her to have a smaller case load and shorter hours and other accommodations if she wants them. Some people at 82 have much vigor an stamina, but a lot are getting a little bit tired. I don't know as its really ageist to recognize that, but I could be wrong, and if so, sorry. (If you're 82 and you're working at Walmart so you won't starve, because capitalism, then no they won't cut you any slack. But we don't want to be like that!). I think having a presence and outreach in retirement communities is an excellent idea and would be a win-win too (stuff like editing Wikipedia is a good way to keep sharp I would think). I'm not the person to follow up on that but if you or anyone else wants to suggest it to the big boo-hoos, I'm all for that. Herostratus (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and hopefully readers know I was kidding about the ageist comment above. Yes, retirees and their communities seem among the most untapped areas for Wikipedia editors, especially the retired professionals and teachers in their chosen fields of endeavor. A fellow I met long ago at an event in a retirement hotel who led up a team that created much of the Apollo Lunar Module comes to mind - he and other NASA workers and contractors could probably give a good read to Wikipedia's unprecedented collection of spaceflight pages (those alone should be given some kind of award and feted at a NASA event). I noticed I mispinged above, who may have some good thoughts on these subjects (and if Jimbo does come by and doesn't know it, Herostratus is the creator and initiator of the well-used and interesting Wikipedian awards and badges, so he deserves a gold-plated mounted trout). As for someone 80 being driven mad by having to complete another 10,000 edits, more power to them! A mind and its experiences and knowledge base exist as ageless in terms of human achievement (just get the body hydrated and Vitamin C'd to rev it up a notch), and the human urge to share with others, a driving force for editing Wikipedia, focuses the intent regardless of age. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed at all to the idea of allowing for a break at the higher levels and setting a cap to the number of required edits. Set Senior Vanguard at 141,000 and Ultimate Vanguard (and all future levels) at 150,000? — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to retroactively change awards that have already been set. But we have almost 5 months until anyone could qualify for level 23 on the basis of service time, so if we wanted to start a conversation about edits, I'd suggest doing a proper, new, full on discussion - maybe even an RfC - to see if the large community would like to change this aspect of service awards. Just an FYI, but repeating the 12,500/year from level 22 would set the level 23 award at 200,000 - a nice round number if we wanted to stop advancing edit count requirements. It definitely would have a bit of a "congratulations, you've won Wikipedia" feel if we stopped requiring any extra edits. We could also go with the plan through level 25 and stop additional edit requirements at a quarter million. So definitely some options if we wanted to do this. BTW, I'm not necessarily taking a position on any of these (aside from changing already set awards), just trying to hash out what all the options are. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 04:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've said before on this page, I think the problem is that the rate of edits per year needed for perfect synchrony with the service award scheme goes up as one ascends through the ladder. In my opinion, it starts too low and ends too high. Looking at the first seven levels, I can well understand such complaints. On the other hand I'm now consistently behind the rate needed for the higher levels. But the lower levels have been around for so long that this is essentially unfixable. So Jkudlick's proposal that starts lowering the edit rate for the top two levels gets my support. If we really can't even change levels 21 and 22, then at least we could start lowering the 12,500/year rate from level 23 onwards. Double sharp (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saw that this discussion has continued. I'm also an "oppose" to any change in the existing numbers - they are now at 175 thousand for 20 years and that, and the others, should stay as posted and not be retroactively demoted. That's about 9,000 a year, which was the range at several other levels. Maybe cut that in half for newer levels and ease off the jumps of 30,000 (yikes). So, 22 years would be 184,000 edits, 24 at 193,000, and then maybe a 25-year level with its own special nice round-number "200,000" badge or stick or "the, you know, the thing". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. and, as some suggest, stop at some point (even the military does that), 200,000 for 25 years sounds just about right and comes out to 8,000 edits a year (achievable, although the botters can rack that up in a week or less). That would be jumps to 184,000 at 22, 193,000 at 24, and topped off by 200,000 for 25 (like a good wine tasting). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Is it just me or does the acorn look like a thick moustached man's mouth with tongue sticking out? Would support replacing it with something else. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ VanIsaac, GHTVcont WpWS 00:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , so the number of requested edits is actually increasing the longer someone is here, from 9,000 a year to 15,000 a year? A big jump. Will the rate keep increasing at 15,000 a year or is this a one-time thing? Will someone at thirty years of service be expected to maintain a rate coming in at 325,000 edits? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea was to hit 250,000 edits for the special 25 years award. This was part of the discussion back at building I think level 22 when it jumped to 12.5k per year. There has been discussion, but no decision on having the service awards possibly top out at a 1⁄4 million edits and just recognize advancements in tenure from that point on. My suggestion to continue the same idea of advancing years and edits in tandem has been to permanently set it at 10k per year after the 25 year award, as that will be the average rate over the entire first 25 levels, and gives you nice looking numbers - 300,000 edits at 30 years, etc. VanIsaac, GHTVcont WpWS 02:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're a tough taskmaster, will give you that. As discussed above, giving editors an easier time after, say, 20 years, is another option, topping out at 200,000 at 25 years (a respectable 8,000 a year). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm about 50,000 edits behind my length of tenure, and that's only because I count commons and other language projects... oh, and over half my edits are from two mass WP:AWB projects undertaken since the pandemic. VanIsaac, GHTVcont WpWS 07:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, just saying that a 15,000 a year jump seems unfair. Once someone gets to 175,000, the 20-year requested number, then continuing the 9,000 a year increment would seem the fairest way to go. That would get someone to 193,000 at 22, 211,000 at 24, and maybe top off at 25 with 225,000 (which could be the number to "win Wikipedia" as someone above put it, at 9,000 average yearly edits/25 years). Putting the burden of a jump from 9,000 to 15,000 a year after someone puts in 20 years and looks forward to setting down in the Wikipedia Retirement Village in Florida (run and subsidized by our friends at WikiMedia) they suddenly have to face the shock of nearly doubling their output for the next few years in order to reserve a townhouse, well, the humanity. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a tad late to the party, but can I make a counter suggestion for the metal? Seaborgium has its own article and unlike some of our newer isotopes is expected to be solid, and given its half life should be nice and bright regardless of lighting conditions. It also has the advantage that we could be the first actual users of this element.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At some point we'd probably use up all the superheavies anyway, so it doesn't matter much to me which one is picked. That said, maybe roentgenium (eka-gold) ought to be reserved for a particularly special number of years. Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Who has time to write 5 articles a day??? It has taken me hours, even days to edit single paragraphs when there is a need to verify multiple sources, some of which which require repeated literature searches, tracking down a copy of the publication, and then reading the papers. 2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Distinguish edit count from years of service?
I think a separate award track for edit count, and a separate one for years of continuous service, would make more sense than the current approach of combining the two with some unclear notion of average(?)/typical(?)/exemplary(?)/variable(?) edits per year ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nealmcb could be an interesting idea. Also because the current, as you agreeably said unclear notion of average(?)/typical(?)/exemplary(?)/variable(?) edits per year, implies a way too low rate of edits per year. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or way too high. I edit all the time and I'm way behind on number of edits as opposed to service time.


 * For just time or just edits, there are useboxes for each. Also, I mean "This user has been editing for ten years and is Kind of a Big Deal", when she only made one edit ten years ago... while true, enh. Also, some people have various ways of making automated or semi-automated edits and might reach very edit high numbers in just a few months, which I guess people who have been slogging away for decades might not like being passed in that way, I don't know. (And no, we are not going to start trying to distinguish between various kinds of edits -- normal, semi-automated, automated, or article page/other pages etc., as that's getting into complications we don't want.) Also, there used to be anyway a real fear of "editcountitis" by which people were, supposedly making lots of edits just to increase their edit count, and then bragging about it or claiming authority based on it or whatever to the point where a number of people seemed genuinely to feel that that increasing your edit count was a bad thing or at least suspect. We had to fight that attitude to get the Service Awards accepted, and probably some people still feel this way (who knows) and we don't want to wake that beast by bringing in anything that is based solely on edit counts. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Years of service" is a tricky metric. Does an editor who happened to start editing in 2003, and happens to have made a smattering of edits per year since, really deserve an award for the mere fact of longevity? There must be some requisite minimum level of productivity over time to deserve an award for it. BD2412  T 02:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Time/edits
The time necessary to get these awards is highly unproportional to the number of edits. The expected rate of edits is way to low. We must change something immediately 14 novembre (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make any suggestions you may have. Simply saying We must change something immediately without offering anything is likely to be ignored. This is a system that has been in place for years, so your reasoning for any changes has to be extremely compelling. It's also just for fun, so... — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Time/edits serious proposal
The awards imply an editing rate which is far lower than the average of most active editors. I suggest, to make it simple, double all the numbers of edits required. Let me know what you think. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Would this be retroactive to all editors? What is the justification for the change, other than "it seems the edit rate needs to be increased"? As of right now, there are over 1,000 users transcluding Service awards, with others transcluding the individual award templates. As I said, your reason for this change has to be extremely compelling, given the age and scope of this fun endeavour. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The current minimum number of edits for 1 year of service is 4,000, which is over ten edits per day. Are you suggesting the average editor makes, on average, more than ten edits each day in their first year of editing? HerrWaus (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's often way higher than that. The enthusiasm of new editors results in dozens, if not hundreds of edits in a day. Sure, there are always exceptions to this. I, myself, average 13.64 edits a day.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  16:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @HerrWaus Probably, considering editors which decide to go on with the project, yes. I agree with @Chris troutman. I myself have a much higher average, although I started contributing seriously in the latest 30-35 days. However, there is the retroactivity problem. To avoid such problems we could consider enabling editors to display the award even with only the edit threshold reached. Let me know 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 17:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4,000 a year isn't super high but a lot of people's edits are inflated by the use of semi-automated tools to do trivial stuff like WikiProject tagging. ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @WikiOriginal-9 They may be inflated by such type of edits (not always, for example I haven't ever done project tagging as far as I remember) but it is a matter of fact that all edits count, so we agree that 4000 edits/year is actually low for an active editor. 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 17:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You still haven't stated why this long-standing system needs to be changed; you've only stated that in your opinion the edit counts seems low. Please also answer the questions I asked in reply to your initial post: Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Would this be retroactive to all editors? What is the justification for the change, other than "it seems the edit rate needs to be increased"? — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jkudlick @Cullen328 The justification to the change is that with a such incongruous edit/time ratio, a user with, say, 10,000 edits after 10 month is entitled to display a "lower" award than a user with 12 months experience but only 4,001 edits. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 19:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That ignores that many, if not most, of the edits people count don't require doing research, while some require hours of literature searches, tracking down publications, cross referencing on-line databases, picking up books from the library, and then having to actually read them, etc. 2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , there is no "higher" or "lower" status, and "entitled" is the wrong way to think about this. These awards are entirely unofficial and are just for fun. There is nothing wrong with the current setup, except that some of the terminology is goofy in my opinion. The incongruity that you perceive is not objective. It exists only in your way of thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328 Well, in my opinion, even if it's just for fun, it should be adjusted to avoid the inconveniences I previously noted. However, if there is a strong consensus for not doing any changes, I will accept it. Thanks for participating,
 * Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You wrote "so we agree that 4000 edits/year is actually low for an active editor." I, for one, am of the opinion that exceeding 4000 edits/year is extremely rare. David notMD (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You've made 4000+ edits year 2017-2023 and you're nowhere near our most prolific editors. How extremely rare do we think this is?  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  20:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians states that 14,100,000 Englich Wikipedia accounts have made at least one edit, but only 47,000 have made more than 1,000 edits in total, so a statement that 4000 edits/year is low is not true. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chris troutman @David notMD Yes, it is low compared to the average of all user, but the majority of users only edit occasionally, so, referring to constant active editors, it is correct to say that 4000 edits per year are few. 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 20:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, 4000+ edits per year is few. Again, from Wikipedians, of all registered accounts at English Wikipedia, only about 63,000 make five or more edits per month, and of those, only 5-6,000 make more than 100 edits per month. An unspecified but much smaller number are consistently making the 333+ edits per month needed to exceed 4,000/year. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @David notMD Again, you refer to all Wikipedians, while I refer to the most active ones, which are the ones more likely to be interested in these awards. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 21:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's complete baloney,. 4000 edits a year is highly active. According to the Wikimedia Foundation as described at Activity, an editor with over 100 edits a month (over 1200 a year), is considered to be a Very active editor. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cullen328 Well, apparently consensus is for not making any modifications. However I think many editors, the truly, constantly active ones do many more edits. For example, i did 1,916 undeleted edits in the last 30 days, which means, if I continue at this rate (hopefully!) approx 23,000 edits in 1 year. Yet I reckon there are may editors way more active than me, so... anyway, if my proposal of entitling users with just the number of edits over the threshold to display the corresponding award does not meet consensus, I will accept the state of fact.
 * Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 21:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we beat this to death, but before abandoning this thread, I point out that I did point out that for English Wikipedia, fewer than 6,000 editors average even 100/month. David notMD (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And User:14 novembre is entitled to put Apprentice Editor on User page, then change to Journeyman Editor at six months. David notMD (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the point is to be encouraging to newer editors and recognize that for many, it takes a while to truly find your really productive editing pattern. We are working our way towards a 10k/year overall edit rate at 25 years / 250,000 edits. There are only 261 editors that meet the edit count criteria for the highest service award level, so it's not like we're handing these things out like candy. But crimping things at the lower levels sort of defeats the purpose of being a fun recognition that gets people excited about being productive editors. VanIsaac, GHTVcont WpWS 06:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @David notMD @Vanisaac Well, I understand your points, if this is the case, the levels can be maintained.
 * Thanks for participating and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 09:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't encourage anyone from spending time and effort in writing something of value, however. 2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Well regardless of the merits of the matter, it's way too late to be changing stuff now. We made one change some years ago... ten years ago? Something like that... for the very highest levels, which only affected a few score people if that, and it was a hassle, and we had to bother people about it, and we had to edit their userpages (generally a big no-no) and explain what we had done and so forth. This was to lower the requirements; there was a general feeling that the required edit counts were too high. But that's it, I think; we are not going to annoy hundreds of users over what is, after all, a toy, and retroactively change their levels, I hope and assume.


 * Of course, it'd be possible to make an another version of Service Awards with different levels and different kinds of awards (food, maybe.... "This editor is a New Editor and is entitled to be served this one plain cracker on a paper plate" up to "This editor is an Unspeakably Divine Presence and is entitled to be served this 14-course gourmet meal on neutronium plates by Louis XIV personally" or whatever). We wouldn't want eight different versions, but two would be OK I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)