Wikipedia talk:Ten Year Society/Archive 2

New logo proposal
Hello everybody. I'd like to submit a redesigned logo for the Ten 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) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yo Bruce, I really like this - thanks! Can you please upload it as SVG? A couple of notes - the puzzle piece needs to be fractionally larger to avoid creating a notch effect where its top right corner touches the stroke of the X. Also, the userbox has a different version of the icon that omits the text, because at that size it's too small to read. Oh, and the file should be named "Ten Year..." (not "Years"). —  Scott  •  talk  16:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the language. Some concerns:
 * Is there a reason for the change in aspect ratio (from ~1.23:1 to square)? Could this affect places where it is used?
 * Should the roman numerals be made smaller so as to allow the top of the "FIFTEEN YEAR" and "TWENTY YEAR" to be within the wreath, like the Ten Year version?
 * Is there a reason the original had an 'A' in the middle of the puzzle piece (and the new ones don't, which looks cleaner)?
 * —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 22:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll try to answer to every point :).
 * @Scott: As you noticed (I suppose), it was a simple "glitch" since I'd already correct the "years", but thanks. Regarding the SVG and the notch, i'm working on ;)
 * @AlanM1:
 * I put it in square ratio cause it would fit better in the userboxes and in other sitauation, but is possible to create different ratio if necessary;
 * Reduce the number would not affect the possibility to fit in one line the word "fifteen year"; to do that I should reduce the font dimension but it would be, IMHO, aestetichally less pleasent;
 * I questioned the same too, but since I figured that it was a simple "quirk", I preffered henance the plainess and clearness. But, if someone tell me that the A as a important meaning, i will put it in again :)
 * I hope to have responded appropriately --Bruce The Deus (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. The "A" was already included on File:Article.svg and I kept it to allude to "annos", i.e. the Latin word for "years". But I think in hindsight that's too obscure and is just clutter, so it should go. About the year variants, I'm opposed to the existence of the "fifteen" version at all - see discussion further up this page - so won't comment on that. Also, there's no reason to have a "twenty" version until Wikipedia has actually existed for twenty years, which is still two years away in the future. —  Scott  •  talk  11:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did the other version since I don't know if I will be still on wiki and/or I will have time to draw, so I prefferred to "anticipate" it ;). Meantime, here it is the svg versions
 * --Bruce The Deus (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * --Bruce The Deus (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to the point, is someone contrary to the new logo? otherwise I'll begin to replace the old one.--Bruce The Deus (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Although the new version is more "correct" from the perspective of modern graphic design principles, I somewhat prefer the old-school flavor of the original (reminds me, in a good way, of early Macintosh color graphics). Also, the original puzzle piece without any right angles, and with the "A" in it, immediately drew a mental connection with the puzzle pieces of the Wikipedia logo, whereas with the new one, someone's first reaction could be "What's with the blank puzzle piece?".
 * That being said, I don't feel strongly enough about this to actively oppose it; just wanted to say my piece (no pun intended). I would ask, however, that you add a mockup of the User Ten Year Society userbox here with the new logo in it, so people can see how that looks before you pull the final trigger.  Thanks.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

--Bruce The Deus (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciated your criticism, thanks😊. That said, I'm not able to give it that "touch" you valued in the old logo, my style tend to a clearness of lines (e.d here ); so we've to wait for further comments, otherwise, I won't change the actual logo. About the userbox, I figure it like that:


 * Thanks, Bruce. Thanks, too, for those other examples of your work – most of them look extremely nice.  However, I'm afraid to say that while in the case of the full-size logo, I somewhat prefer the original, in the case of the userbox, I much prefer the original.  Your puzzle piece is too small to easily make out, especially being grey rather than white like the original:
 * To tell you the truth, your puzzle piece at that size kind of looks like a person being crucified (albeit sideways, and on an X-shaped cross). I am also against the grey background to the text, the text change (and apparent plan to disable all the parameters?), and the lack of an outer border.
 * Although, as I mentioned, I wouldn't actively block your changes to the full-sized logo, I would do so for your changes to the userbox. If you feel strongly about all the design changes you've made, I would ask that you either make it an alternate userbox, as SportsFan007 did at, or else add a new parameter to the existing userbox (e.g. "|style=Bruce"), and cause your new graphic, text, and other changes to only appear instead of the original design when that's specified.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, thanks for your feedback. I agree with you in preferring the userbox with its current border and white background for the text panel and would ask you Bruce to not change that. (Dan I think the lack of params is just because this is a quick mockup.) About the puzzle piece, an image search for "puzzle piece icon" shows that most renderings have a squarer shape, like the original icon - could you increase its vertical height? That might resolve Dan's impression of it. I also agree that it would be easier to distinguish retaining its white background - when you originally embedded it above I didn't see that it was transparent. By the way, Dan, thanks for the comment about Macintosh color graphics - I'm of that generation too. —  Scott  •  talk  13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, thanks for your feedback. I agree with you in preferring the userbox with its current border and white background for the text panel and would ask you Bruce to not change that. (Dan I think the lack of params is just because this is a quick mockup.) About the puzzle piece, an image search for "puzzle piece icon" shows that most renderings have a squarer shape, like the original icon - could you increase its vertical height? That might resolve Dan's impression of it. I also agree that it would be easier to distinguish retaining its white background - when you originally embedded it above I didn't see that it was transparent. By the way, Dan, thanks for the comment about Macintosh color graphics - I'm of that generation too. —  Scott  •  talk  13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sign up
Can I join this party? I'm less than a month from my 12-year mark! It's me...Sallicio!$\color{Red} \oplus$ 16:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Sorry the welcome wagon got derailed.  😉  --Dan Harkless (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * May I join, too? I am here since June 2008... —Cote d&#39;Azur (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Welcome! —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 12:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Can I also join the Society? I'm also here since 21 July 2006. I also have added the "Template:Ten Year Society invitation" on my user page. This is sufficient? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there is no official policy on grandfathering in account changes (or anything else for that matter), by the power vested in me (by nobody in particular), I hereby grant you membership in our exclusive society. Welcome! —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 11:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oww, thanks! I am humbly honored and grateful :-) Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

How do I apply for membership? Or is it invitation only?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think Jim Henderson answered that best:


 * To be more explicit (if less humorous), editors who qualify can just go ahead and use the User Ten Year Society userbox and/or the 10 Year topicon on or more one of their userpages, and they'll be automatically added to the list. We do appreciate that you stopped by to say hi, though.  🙂  --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Query: if a contributor's work has been contributed under two different user names does that disqualify them from membership? (for the first six years I was User:Felix Folio Secundus)--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope, come on in. I'd say the same flexibility would apply as in : "If you began as an anonymous IP editor and want to count from the time of your first IP edit, that's also okay. If you run or ran more than one account, you may choose to include the edits for your other user accounts as well. If you are or were an administrator, you can count your administrative actions as edits if you want. You may also begin counting the amount of time you have been an editor for from an older account or IP address of yours. It's all based on the honor system, so do what you think gives you the most fair and accurate award level."  Cheers.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thorough explanation.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fifteen Year Society
Should there be some promotion of the TYS - there must be others who qualify but are not aware of it.

As WP has been around for eighteen years - perhaps it is time to set up a Fifteen Year Society. (I don't qualify yet - and do not have the design knowledge.) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion in a previous section above. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 22:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How much larger than present membership of the TYS is the theoretical membership (allowing for occasional/intermittent activity and changes of names)? How many people fall into the 15-18 years' activity group?
 * Perhaps the 15+ Society could be developed as part of the 'Wikipedia is 20' celebratory discussions. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I knew how to write a bot, I would engineer one to message all users with over 10 years. It's me...Sallicio!$\color{Red} \oplus$ 16:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I (understandably) didn't see a way to get a list from the API, but User:AlanM1/15YList-201812 is a list of users that I threw together based on WP:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival for those whose first edit was in or before December 2003. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 09:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... can we not? Otherwise someone later down the line will be like "hey, I'll just create an Eleven Year Society and Twelve Year Society and... to fill in the gap" and all of a sudden this is indistinguishable from the service awards scheme. I'd be okay to there being another one when twenty years is a possibility. Decades are a good interval. —  Scott  •  talk  12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes to Ten and Twenty, Hell no to Five or Fifteen. OK, so there is this one rather ordinary galaxy among 2 trillion other galaxies. On the outskirts of the galaxy there is a completely ordinary and boring star, much like many of the other 100 billion stars in that galaxy. Orbiting around this star is this one particular planet. So we measure how long this planet takes to complete an orbit. Then we look around and notice that one particular ape on this planet has started making simple computers and hooking them together. We multiply the number of orbits by the number of small appendages on two (not one, not four, nobody knows why) of the ape's large appendages. Got me so far? OK, so a tiny percentage of the apes have been using a tiny part of their largish collection of computers for the same amount of time as the orbit multiplied by half of their smaller appendages and they decided to list some of the apes on one of 50 million subdivisions of a tiny subset of the computers that the apes have been using. It's all completely arbitrary, but hey, some of the apes like it. Our proposal is to also list some of the apes on another one of the 50 million subdivisions but this time we count three quarters of the small appendages instead of half. Completely different! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is Fifteen Year Society - currently no actual members. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * has now started inviting people to it. I think that this diminishes the value of the TYS and I'm sad to see it happening. —  Scott  •  talk  12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the 10-year society is just an "informal group" and "is not intended as a form of one-upmanship, but as a good-natured recognition of enthusiasm and dedication" I don't see how it can be "diminished in value" in any way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not difficult to understand. The primary value of this group is in its being an informal and cordial assembly. Converting it into a component of a conveyor belt takes that away. Clunk clunk beep. —  Scott  •  talk  13:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should promote the 15 year society...it is quite an accomplishment, I think. I came across some editors who've been active for 17 or 18 years..I think that consistency is very notable these days. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been active 14 years and I think longtime membership is rare. Wikipedians quit for a variety of reasons and I came close to quitting once. Maybe a Twenty Year Society would be a good idea. Why do a few people stay around 20 years, while most other people leave? Bill Pollard (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001 you would be hard pressed to identify 20 year vets. Moriori (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend that we extended the concept out to every "5 YEAR" increment (20/25/30/35) as the clock gets closer to each. I doubt that Wikipedia is going to start mailing out "gold watches", so why not extend out something that costs zero to do?  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 03:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Membership
Just found out about this, can I join? Not far off 15 years either. McMuff (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can. The only limit for membership is the date you registered your account, not your activity level throughout. I send out invites when I notice anniversaries as noted in WP:BIRTHDAY. If you add your name to your respective date template, a member of the committee will provide you an invite to the 15-year society when the day comes. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

New Membership
Hello! I just found out about this group. Is there a way I can join? Thank you! Jonmaxras (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , membership is very simple. Read through Ten Year Society and you should be good to go. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:24, 27 January 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) 21:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What does it matter to you? Is it causing you some unknown pain? It's a fun page that helps recognize longevity on the Project. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 19:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If this entity with well intentions exists to reach positive goals, it should be easy to explain how those goals are reached by the existence of entity. Otherwise it's obviously not achieving it's goals. Hyacinth (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , who cares if it isn't achieving it's goals? Where does it say that every page on Wikipedia has to be useful for User:Hyacinth in order to exist? What is your intended outcome of your comment here? You think we are all going to suddenly see your wisdom and admit the errors of our ways. Here, I will make this easy for you: Miscellany for deletion. If you are so passionate about this, then nominate it for deletion. Discussion here will not solve anything. It's like going to the floor of the Republican National Convention to advocate for universal healthcare: pointless. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 20:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, seriously. It's called pragmatism. I didn't say your goals shouldn't be achieved. I said they should be. Hyacinth (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, seriously. When all of your wishes are granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed. A little voice in a gloomy pop song from 25 years ago told me that, so it must be true. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

New member
Hello, everyone! I have found out about this society not so long ago, and decided to add myself today (by putting the appropriate topicon and userbox to my userpage). I am not sure if it was required for me to be invited first? I am sorry if it was; it certainly isn't my habit to push myself on others without invitation. Being an editor here since 27 March 2010, I just thought it would be somehow natural for me to belong to this society (and to eventually transition to the Fifteen Year Society and the Twenty Year Society, when the time comes). Cheers! —Sundostund (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, you met the tenure requirement almost two years ago and I'm sorry we didn't send an invite then. To help you out, I added your name to the respective first edit calendar entry so a member of the birthday committee can recognize future anniversaries for you. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for your prompt and kind reply, and for adding my name to the BDC Calendar... Two years more or less, its not a big deal really – I am certainly glad to belong to this society now. —Sundostund (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; WikiProject Editor Retention is glad you haven't become disillusioned and quit, yet. We believe in volunteers recognizing volunteers. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm too addicted to this place to even think about quitting. There isn't really a danger for that to happen! ;) —Sundostund (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)