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)

@Herostratus: I'll try to upload the images tonight. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus: here is the transcluded table. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed updates to service award ribbons

°	Level name	Current images		Proposed image #1 (service stars)	Proposed image #2 (match small ribbons)
		Small Ribbon	Large Ribbon
1	Registered Editor			No change
2	Novice Editor			No change
3	Apprentice Editor			No change
4	Journeyman Editor			No change
5	Yeoman Editor			No change
6	Experienced Editor			No change
7	Veteran Editor			No change
8	Veteran Editor II
9	Veteran Editor III
10	Veteran Editor IV
11	Senior Editor
12	Senior Editor II
13	Senior Editor III
14	Master Editor
15	Master Editor II
16	Master Editor III
17	Master Editor IV
18	Grandmaster Editor
19	Grandmaster Editor First-Class
20	Vanguard Editor

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)

@Mootros: 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)

@Herostratus, VMS Mosaic, and Mootros: 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)

 Done I'll begin working on the smaller ribbons later. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed updates to service award ribbons

°	Level name	Current designs		Updated designs		Incremental awards
		Large Ribbon	Small Ribbon	Large Ribbon	Small Ribbon	Level 2	Level 3	Level4
1	Registered Editor
2	Novice Editor
3	Apprentice Editor
4	Journeyman Editor
5	Yeoman Editor
6	Experienced Editor					N/A
7	Veteran Editor					N/A
8	Veteran Editor II					N/A
9	Veteran Editor III					N/A
10	Veteran Editor IV					N/A
11	Senior Editor					N/A
12	Senior Editor II					N/A
13	Senior Editor III					N/A
14	Master Editor					N/A
15	Master Editor II					N/A
16	Master Editor III					N/A
17	Master Editor IV					N/A
18	Grandmaster Editor					N/A
19	Grandmaster Editor First-Class					N/A
20	Vanguard Editor					N/A

• 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)

• @Mootros, Herostratus, and VMS Mosaic: 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)

• @Mootros, Herostratus, and VMS Mosaic: 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)

@Randy Kryn: 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 ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 21:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2018 (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 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 ⚓ (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)

@14 novembre: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 ⚓ (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)

14 novembre, 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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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, 14 novembre. 4000 edits a year is highly active. According to the Wikimedia Foundation as described at Wikipedia: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, GHTV ^cont_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)

Building a level 24 service award

Yep, it's happened again! Two years on, and I guess I'll start this guy up again.

Most Sagacious Editor (or High Ephoros of the Encyclopedia)
This editor is a Most Sagacious Editor and is entitled to display this Azbantium Editor Star with the Strangelet Superstar. {{Most Sagacious Editor}}	This editor is High Ephoros of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to something. {{High Ephoros}}	This editor is a Most Sagacious Editor and is entitled to display this Azbantium Editor Star with the Strangelet Superstar. {{Most Sagacious Editor Userbox}} This editor is High Ephoros of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to something. {{High Ephoros Userbox}} Most Sagacious Editor {{Most Sagacious Editor Ribbon}} [[File:Editorrib24.svg]] {{Most Sagacious Editor topicon}}	Requirements: 235,000 edits and 24 years of service

I'll get started on the ribbon and building the base templates out soon. Certainly looking for help on the Most Sagacious star and High Ephoros entitlement, so let's get the discussion started. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning the work on this. I will update {{Service awards}} and {{Service award progress}} when I have the time. That should be by the middle of next week. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I have some concerns about the practicality of the WMF issuing these medals. The BBC presumably controls access to the only known sources of Azbantium, so can I suggest we specify Actinium-227 instead? As far as I can see it is the closest interesting isotope to a 24 year half life, so an obvious link with a 24 year award (there is a lead one that's closer, but lead is a toxic, dull and unfashionable metal unsuitable for medals). ϢereSpielChequers 07:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Favor Azbantium. The dedication that the Doctor had to break through the Azbantium wall and save Clara Oswald symbolizes the dedication that Wikipedians have to create an encyclopedia which will last four and a half billion years (give or take a millennium). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll be completely honest: it just happened to be the last one added to the list of fictional elements. I read it and thought it would be popular enough being from Doctor Who, with absolutely zero appreciation of the metaphorical applicability. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 15:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose Azbantium does follow current precedents, I'll withdraw my objection and at some point I will make a proposal for a review of the whole system. ϢereSpielChequers 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're no longer in search of the truth.

The trouble with your ridiculous service awards is that you're not seeking the truth. You're all being rewarded for the number of edits. Wikipedia attempts to seek consensus, not truth. Well in that case, how are you any different from the Chinese government and all of their CCP denizens? That way, the majority win. But what if the majority is ignorant? What then? What if the majority have not researched things in great detail? I say this as a former science researcher by the way. Someone with a PhD. But that doesn't appear to count for much these days. If you're going to give all the power to basically, well, anyone, then what good is it? 203.30.15.94 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Doc. The thing about the service awards is that they specifically cover length of service and number of edits. But they aren't the only award system that Wikipedia has, not even the most important one. If you look at wp:FAC those awards are much more highly valued within the Wikipedia community, and you don't get an article to featured status without researching the subject in great detail. For you as a science researcher that may not seem difficult, but for a lot of people this requires skills we had to learn as Wikipedians. So do we give power to everyone? We give votes to every community member whether their contribution is reverting vandalism, fixing typos or writing referenced content. But such power as we give, for example in arbcom elections, we usually give to people who have shown skills in resolving disputes, but even just for adminship we as a community will only elect people who have demonstrated an ability to research things to the level of doing an inline citation to a reliable source. ϢereSpielChequers 08:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Damn. We've been found out. Yes we are exactly like the Chinese government. I never thought anyone would catch on, but no fooling you I guess. So anyway, being a good Red Chinese person, I can't really agree. Napoleon (nobody's fool!) said "A soldier will fight long and hard for a piece of colored ribbon". So, for those who are so inclined, let us offer a piece of colored ribbon. If you don't like the service awards... well, as the bumper sticker says, "Against gay marriage? Don't have one". Every editor is certainly free to not display their service awards (most don't), and you are entirely free, when coming across one who does, to roll your eyes, snort, and mutter "what an idiot". It's a free world. But let people who want to have a bit of fun, have a bit of fun. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit Looshpah III and IV entitlement userboxes to be consistent with primary table

The entitlement userbox for these awards says "...Free Errata Sheet..." while the primary table lists "Errata Sheet". I propose removing the word "Free" from the entitlement userbox templates, and per the policy described on the edit page, I am posting here first for discussion. Ivniinvi (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have made the changes to the userboxes and to {{Service awards}}. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, colleague. Godspeed and dread nought. Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)