Wikipedia talk:Service awards

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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)

More information °, Level name ...

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

Close

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)

More information °, Level name ...

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

Close

• 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)

The last couple days an editor has been trying to remind that the plan was to put up a 25-year 250,000 edits service award, which is why the standard of 15,000 edits a year was implemented during the past several years. At one point I recall someone saying that it would be the last award listed, and would mean the editor has 'won Wikipedia'. I can imagine a 30 year award being suggested near 2031, but for now the 25 year badge seems like reviving the plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about "the plan", but I see you and VanIsaac talking about a 25-year award at e.g. Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 7#Building a level 23 service award (and possibly doing every 5 years after). I don't see anyone else commenting on the idea at a quick glance. There was also Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 7#25 year award suggesting an image and metal. I'm happy to leave it to you-all.

I don't see any sign that that editor was trying to remind anyone of that past discussion. They seem to have gotten the idea independently and were using it as an excuse for BFDI references. Anomie⚔ 14:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Oops, correct ping for Vanisaac. Anomie⚔ 14:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Without looking I recall that that's why the heavy-load standard of 15,000 edits a year was implemented (after the earlier 9,000 edits a year), to reach 250,000 at the 25 year mark. The editor who came up with this independently the last couple of days is starting out on their road to 25 years. On the other hand, if the 25 year award isn't done, will the 15,000 a year still hold for the 2027 or go back to 9,000 a year after 2026 (2027 being 259,000 edits and 26 years of service or 265,000 edits and 26 years?). Have always enjoyed the creativity of the metals and other elements used in these, except the cardboard carrying tube which wasn't an actual element of the scroll but just a tube. Whatever is decided it'll be fun to see what the next one is made from. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm all for it! Given that we have a special anniversary, I'd love to see a new set of awards and graphics started up for this one. It would be great if we could get an SVG medal image to build off of in the coming years, and the library map is getting pretty crowded. I'll start up the process, though. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 06:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Building a Level 25 service award

Great Sagacious Editor (or Grand Ephoros of the Encyclopedia)

{{Great Sagacious Editor}}

{{Grand Ephoros}}

This editor is a Great Sagacious Editor and is entitled to display this Dilithium Editor Star. {{Great Sagacious Editor Userbox}} This editor is a Grand Ephoros of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to this hyperkytheria mechanism. {{Grand Ephoros Userbox}} {{Great Sagacious Editor Ribbon}} [[File:Editorrib25.svg]] {{Great Sagacious Editor topicon}}

Requirements: 250,000 edits and 25 years of service

Nice, and timely. But don't we need a metal for the medal? If so may I suggest lead-210 as from what I can see it has the closest link to 25 years. ϢereSpielChequers 11:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

More information Blocked user mostly talking to themself. Anomie⚔ 02:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC) ...

Blocked user mostly talking to themself. Anomie⚔ 02:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggested bombastium as the element it comes from Disney and one atom of it turns a rarely of water into a barrel of ice cream Tren2 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Lead 210 is dangerous poisonous and not valuable which is the exact opposite of what a service award this high should be made of Tren2 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC) also I suggested Bombastium 11 hours before you did no one wants to win a lead award cooking mama proves why carykh gives lead metals to last place that's why bombastium should be the 25 year service award not lead Tren2 (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC) I responded to van isaacs post by suggesting bombastium as the element for the 25 year service award it is very valuable because it can make unlimited food due to the fact that one atom plus one barrel of water equals one barrel of ice cream unlimited food is very valueable on the other hand lead has poisoned the world and caused trillions in damage cooking mama gives it if you are terrible and Carykh gives it to last place along with jelles marbles runs Tren2 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Talking of dangerous, your description of bombastium reminds of Ice-9, because if an atom in a barrel of water turns the water into ice cream then it's just a matter of time, and someone with a few handfuls of bombastium, until Earth's oceans are turned into Chunky Monkey. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC) I did not know that Disney element could cause the destruction present in aumsum Tren2 (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Bombastium is a very important future source of food because one atom plus one barrel of water is one barrel of ice cream unlimited food is very important to the future of civilization of course lead is the opposite no one like lead it is the cheapest and most poisonous element recalls of toys around the world happen due to lead lead poisoning is very serious issue the lead cube is jelles marble runs Version of a wooden spoon because lead is poisoning the world and making it go mad with anger why would people think that lead is good it is not it is bad and tortuous and toxic Tren2 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Ok I suggested To Change My Award to netherite a powerful metal first refined from bricks of ancient debris in the nether to obtain nether scraps which are usually combined with gold to make ingots and then these ingots can improve the most powerful diamond to create netherite equipment the best equipment in the world increasing power and preventing them from being destroyed in any fire no matter how hot it gets Tren2 (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Netherite Is Metal from the Netherlands A place of intense heat and where powerful beings lives netherite is durable to resist all those being this comes from Minecraft universe a game with 300 million downloads netherite can resist endless temptaures and survive in the nether which has soul fire which burns blue hot at over 50,000 degrees so netherite is resistant to tempatures less than and a little bit over 50,000 degrees which is very impressive also it is stronger than diamond which is well known as mohs hardness 10 and thus netherite has mohs hardness of 11 which breaks the scale and it incredibly powerful Tren2 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC) In Minecraft diamond armor has a toughness of 8 but netherite has a toughness of 12 and thus it is tougher than diamond and has a mosh toughness of 11 Tren2 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Netherites mohs toughness is 11 it can resist endless 50,000 degree tempatures and it is resistant to knockback and protects people from being blasted back Tren2 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Also lead is a dangerous poisonous and toxic substance that jelles marble runs and Carykh gives to last place also lead paint was banned in the 1970s so i want to ban lead awards Tren2 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Netherite Is also very enchantable with powerful magic to allow the person who has the metal to control the world with its offense Tren2 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC) I suggest that netherite is a good solution to the element for. 25 year service award because it is extremely durable more durable than diamond extremely fire resistant survives in nether which has tempatures of hotter than 50,000 degrees and also knockback resistant as it prevent people from being knockback and is said to be tougher than diamond with a hardness rating of 11 Tren2 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC) I suspect Netherite and Bombastium are both under copyright, and that could cause complications for the WMF, especially if they start to make the physical medals. There's also the non trivial matter that fictional elements don't actually exist. Lead is indeed a toxic element, and lead shouldn't be used for drinking vessels, cosmetics or anything that children will chew on. But a medal given to adults is less likely to be chewed. Also for this particular isotope, Lead 210, toxicity is unlikely to be most people's biggest concern. ϢereSpielChequers 17:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Why would wmf start to make the physical medal ~2026-90468-6 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Close

What about iridium? User97104 (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

My personal opinion would incline to continue using fictional substances since that's been the trend. There're more we haven't used, and a lot of them are at List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles. My personal opinion is that would be good to use substances that have a full article, are not super niche/obscure, and are cool. From that article, I'm seeing

• Cavorite, from H.G Welles's From the Earth to the Moon.
• Dilithium (Star Trek), but for better or worse there is actually a real Dilithium.
• Kryptonite, Superman. But it hurts Supes and he's a good guy.
• Thiotimoline, Isaac Asimov, but it's probably too obscure.
• Vibranium, from Marvel's Wakanda (Black Panther).
• Xirang, actually from real Chinese legend, but it's just dirt.

And some others:

• Starlite, presumably a hoax but who knows.
• Unicorn horn, not a metal but so. The actual substance they're made of is "Alicorn".
• Infinity Stones, but maybe not giving a great vibe
• The Hope Diamond. It's only the size of walnut. But it actually exists. But still.
• Wonder Woman's bracelets are made Femium. You could use Femium and link to the bracelets article I guess.
• A Silmaril. They're apparently only 2-3 inches in diameter.

I'm sure there's more, too. The Ring of the Nibelung or the One Ring would be cool too. They're rings not necklaces, but so. You could keep the Azbantium necklace and wear the ring too I guess. Nor sure if these rings give off good vibes tho.

I think we use both a metal and a jewel? So, one of the metals and then like a Silmaril or the Hope Diamond too? That'd be cool.

Unicorn horn, Vibranium, and Cavorite are good metals IMO. So are Femium and Starlite. Actually, any of them.

Also, I think the floor plan of The Great Library of Alecyclopedias alternate is played out... how about something else? Maybe a 200-trillion-gigabyte thumb drive containing the entire internet? Apparently that would be big enough. Or start smaller with just a 10 terrabyte drive containing the digitized data of of the entire Library of Congress. Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm, there are six missing Fabergé eggs. I for one would certainly be delighted to get one, as they are shrouded in mystery and if found would cause a sensation (and also be very valuable). These six are Hen with Sapphire Pendant, Cherub with Chariot, Nécessaire, Mauve, Royal Danish, and Alexander III Commemorative egg. The eggs themselves are the size of hen's eggs, but come with stands and stuff. They wouldn't fit in a star and are too big to worn, so... Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If there was a user which had 400 edits and 40 days of editing, the edit progress (towards Apprentice Editor) shown would be 200/800, which works out to 25%. If you did 400/1000, that would work out to 40%. User97104: Overview (communications, numbers) 14:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The template displays the progress to the next level, not overall progress. That's why it reads:

Currently, this editor has earned the {CURRENT AWARD NAME} service award.

To get to the next level, {NEXT AWARD NAME}, they need to meet...

There is no ambiguity in that verbiage. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand that it is of no importance at all, but:

1) "Grandmaster Editor" have a "Neutronium Superstar", while all the further "ranks" up to the "Sagacious Editor" have a very similar "Neutronium Superstar hologram" instead. "Hologram" doesn't looks from the sequence as a something more "impressive" than "actual object", because "ranks" from the "Sagacious Editor" have an "actual objects" again, and not "holograms". Is there a chance "hologram" is simply missed from the "Grandmaster Editor" description, or there is some underlying reasoning for it?

2) "Rhodium Editor Star" precede "Platinum Editor Star"; aren't Rhodium more precious than Platinum? ~2026-24399-31 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I just checked mine and yes, it's a hologram! I can put my hand right through the godforsaken thing. That must have been a vandal edit sometime and nobody caught it. Good find, will fix it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

A bit harder than I thought, they seem to be on four individual templates so maybe not a vandal. Better wait until other editors comment, was there a decision to make these things holograms and not the real deal? I was wondering why it never needed dusting. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, went ahead and fixed it. Thanks ~2026-24399-31, am surprised this wasn't noticed before but that's what collaboration is all about. Nice find. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Looked it up, as you confirmed it was unintentional, and turned out it was originally fixed by @VMS_Mosaic years ago , , but, sadly, only at two places from six. And no, looks like they were created that way intentionally by @Mootros, not some later addition ~2026-24713-07 (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, looks like it's not fixed completely, at least some pages still display "hologram". It remained in Template:Service_awards/core, maybe, it's the problem (or there are some other places too). ~2026-32471-13 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed Template:Service awards/core in Special:Diff/1357046219. Once that has a chance to propagate, we'll see if any more are left. Anomie⚔ 12:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed, thanks. ~2026-32471-13 (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Updated Template:Service awards/core/sandbox too. Looks like the remaining search results for "Neutronium Superstar hologram" are substed or manually coded. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My addition of a short to-the-point usage section intended for newcomers was reverted by User:Anomie with this rationale Redundant to the existing →Images, userboxes, and top icons: section

Please confirm your opposition to this because I would say the sections are not redundant.

One is intended to be a short introduction at the very top of the page providing basic usage guidance. The other is much more involved and IMHO not suited for beginners. CapnZapp (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If a beginner can't figure out how follow the instructions already on this page, I doubt they need to be worried about giving themself a service award. They'd do better reading a page that will teach them the basics of editing. Never mind that your "short introduction" doesn't really help them with the hard parts. Anomie⚔ 23:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Service awards relative to the average editor. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Following the above discussion, it appears an exceedingly small portion of active editors are eligible for the current set of service awards. Per User:Anomie's statistics:

• 74 of 11709 (0.632%) active accounts ("active" defined as "made an edit in the past month, which hasn't been deleted") aged 2–4 years met the 22 edits-per-day threshold used for the current awards for those ages.
• Of active accounts aged 4–18 years, 304 of 34323 (0.886%) met the 25 edits-per-day threshold used for the current awards.

Let me first prominently say I am not asking to change these thresholds. Instead, I'm asking if there has ever been a discussion to institute a second set of service awards that is slightly less unrealistic to hope to attain for more average users?

Apparently I am myself a top 0.1% contributor, and that's even though I am light years away from being able to reach even close to the award my service duration would qualify me for, the Senior Vanguard Editor Award. (I have amassed a whopping 13.3% of the edits needed, so that will never happen in my lifetime).

The current set of service awards are therefore only for the very elite. Have there ever been a discussion about this? Our page certainly does not frame service awards as something 99.9% of readers should just stay away from because they will never gain them (or like me, would have to settle for junior awards despite considerable service).

Again, I have no issue with this per se. In fact there definitely should be some way to indicate being a top contributor and not just the top 100 list, so this is not about diluting the current awards. But they would present themselves much much better if there were at least one set of alternatives, with maybe one tenth or even one twentieth the edit count requirements. For instance, awards to ten-year accounts that require ~8,000 or ~3,500 edits. This would apparently still only involve very few active users, so still plenty of prestige. CapnZapp (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

For future reference, here's how this could play out. I'll be using the 1 year, 5 year, 10 year and 20 year service awards as points of comparison:

The page currently reads The edit count requirements for the levels are based on what, in the opinion of the editors who formulated the requirements, could be achieved by a human editor working with considerable regularity and diligence using the default tools and a fairly typical editing pattern. The awards for the first two years require a considerably lower edit rate than those for the later years.

Those phrases like "considerable regularity" and "fairly typical" sure does a lot of heavy lifting... In fact, I consider it exceedingly unlikely a reader and newcomer to Wikipedia Awards will read this and go "oh, they're talking about the one editor in a hundred that works the hardest." I feel the current presentation of Service Awards completely fails to convey the fact they are only for the very elite, the one percent.

Yes, it turns out the edit count requirements are set so that a little over one percent of editors qualify. Source: #c-Anomie-20260510182400-CapnZapp-20260510145500

• At 1 year, 1% reach 8.3 edits per day and you need about 11.
• At 5 years, 1% reach 18.7 edits per day and you need about 18.
• At 10 years, 1% reach 25.4 edits per day and you need about 21.
• At 15 years, 1% reach 27.3 edits per day and you need about 22-23.
• At 20 years, 1% reach 35.2 edits per day and you need about 24.

How could we better convey the intended prestige of these awards? Or is there consensus for the current phrasing which to me downplays this? Thoughts? CapnZapp (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The rationale currently concludes Thus, not all editors will see a good match between service time and edit counts (some editors may be eligible for a high level by service time but not by edit count, while other editors may be eligible for a high level by edit count, but not by service time). This is an imperfection which is an inherent consequence of the decision to use an uncomplicated system for determining eligibility for each award.

This severely downplays how hard it is to achieve the level of reward indicated by your service length. In practice, almost no editor will see a "good match", since the edit counts are set so that only 1% of active editors qualify. The ratio between the two groups is not "some this / some that", but more like "almost everybody vs hardly anyone". I doubt the resulting ultra elite nature of these awards really were considered an "imperfection", but anyway: no, this "imperfection" is not an inherent consequence of using an "uncomplicated" system. The elite nature of these awards are instead clearly and obviously a consequence of deliberately setting the edit count requirements so very high. You could have kept the exact same uncomplicated system and yet easily have balanced the "imperfection" between the two groups simply by massively lowering the edit count requirements. In summary, this entire section reads insincere and basically misleading. It really needs to be edited to own the fact the creators of these Awards set out to limit the number of editors eligible for any given service time's award to one out over every hundred active contributors. CapnZapp (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Skimming through the archives, it looks like the levels were set by feel; I saw just one passing suggestion of looking at actual editor data, which wasn't followed up on. Also relevant is that they wanted "higher levels" (back in 2011 when that meant "10 years") to be harder to reach. Originally the levels were even higher, e.g. 250,000 edits for 16 years; two discussions lowered things to the current levels (and agreed to keep it at 9k/year going forward, which was later changed in 2020 for apparently no reason other than to hit the magic number of 250,000 edits at 25 years 🤷). Anomie⚔ 19:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Most of the service award userboxes are in the template namespace (with a few exceptions, like User:UBX/Burba Userbox). This is fine, but none of their names comply with WP:UBXNS, In the template namespace, userbox names must begin with "User". I was wondering if there would be any objection to mass-moving these templates, e.g. {{Togneme II Userbox}} to {{User Togneme II}}. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 17:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to object to that move. I understand completely that a simple reading of the guideline would indicate doing that, but I am concerned that this has existed for so long and been maintained and consistently developed as an exception that the consensus on service award userbox naming conventions is far more compelling than the general userbox naming guideline. The general userbox guideline started from December 2005, and got its current imperative form in March 2006. That verbiage was just created a nihilum, with no discernable discussion ever held. In fact, it seems to stem from the instructions on adding a userbox to your personal page that tells you to add the code {{User userboxname}}, rather than any principle of userbox naming guidelines. I'd also like to note that WP:Userbox policy from which that verbiage came was never actually adopted. It just got merged into the regular guideline page in 2007.

Meanwhile, the oldest service award userboxes I can find got moved to their current name in 2010, and that naming convention has held since then. Their names, in fact, never met the general guideline of beginning with "user". This suggests a completely different conception is in play here, and the general guideline has never actually been practiced in the manner in which it was written. I think this is creating something out of a big old nothingburger. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 21:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I will also object. WP:UBX is a guideline, not a policy. As such, [e]ditors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply, and I believe an exception applies here. This is a naming scheme that has been stable since before I began editing almost 15 years ago. Unless there is an actual policy-based reason for the mass-renaming, then don't rename the mass. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright. I won't rename them. However, User:UBX/Burba Userbox seems to be the only one in userspace. Should it be renamed to Template:Burba Userbox (which is currently a redirect)? Axolitl (talk | contribs) 22:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I highly doubt this will be controversial, so I'm going to do it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 22:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I finally had a chance to review the history of that userbox because I thought it was odd that only that particular userbox had been moved. It turns out it used to exist where it does now until it was moved this past December without notifying us and without moving any of the other userboxes. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for clarification on how "service" is intended to be calculated for the purpose of Service Awards. What is considered the start date of a user's "service"? The date the Wikimedia account was created, or the date of the user's first edit?
If the start date is the first edit, should that be the first edit on the specific wiki where the award is being given (e.g. English Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia), or the user's first edit on any Wikimedia project? Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

First edit, English Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems vague, possibly intentionally. In the lead, it mentions the length of time registered and the length of time from when an account, while the "What is counted" section states If you began as an anonymous IP editor and want to count from the time of your first IP edit, that is also okay (and also If you want to count edits on other Wikimedia projects, that is okay too.). You might also consider other odd cases, like someone who registered and made one edit 20 years ago, then left for 19 years before starting to edit again, is that really 20 years of service? Anomie⚔ 12:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point; stating both "the length of time registered" and "count from the time of your first IP edit" is confusing and should be addressed. Regarding the odd cases: I fear it will be cumbersome to determine a 'net period of service' of sorts. Meaning deducting periods of inactivity from the total length of service. How long would such a period of inactivity have to be? 10 days? 30 days? And how would you determine this 'net period'? You'd have to go through all contributions of an editor establishing where the duration between edits exceeds the agreed upon period of inactivity. Mill 1 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Or just determine length of time as sports stats do, one edit a year qualifies for that year. If someone makes one edit, then 20 years go by before their next, seems logical to count that as two years instead of 20. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Great idea! I'd prefer a shorter period though; one edit qualifies for a month. Is also 'in line' with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits which states: "A user name in black (unlinked) has not been used for editing on any Wikimedia project in the last 30 days". But one edit a year would work for me as well. Mill 1 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It's probably best to just go with what's at the end of that paragraph in the "What is counted" section: It is all based on the honor system, so do what you think gives you the most fair and accurate award level. Anomie⚔ 22:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right Anomie. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Added the language to the second lead paragraph: "These awards are based on the honor system, so editors should do what they think gives them the most fair and accurate award level.", which would answer this question when it comes up again. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not sure that that addition, placed where it is, won't confuse the issue by encouraging people to ignore the requirements entirely. But I'll wait to see what others think. Anomie⚔ 22:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That was edited and copied from the language you pointed out, but it does seem a bit too much for what's already pretty clearly spelled out in the paragraph. I've removed the sentence per your concern while doing some language edits. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The language I pointed out is attached to discussion of what exactly to count, while in the lead it was adjacent to the already questionable "typically both requirements must be met" statement (which, I note, was added in Special:Diff/805740168 after a previous edit had removed a "both requirements must be met" statement from the lead). In fact, I'm going to re-remove that "Typically" sentence now. Anomie⚔ 11:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)