Wikipedia talk:Service awards/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

So its edits AND time... ?

So its edits AND time... and a healthy edit count alone is not sutable to allow advance up the ladder from "experienced" to "veteran"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the time requirement should be dropped. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it doesn't really affect me, but I've always thought it silly anyhow.  fetchcomms☛ 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I always get killed by the edit count. I like to stay around more so than edit tons. bibliomaniac15 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I favor time AND edits both, I also get killed by the edit count, because I usually work on fewer but longer articles. Just edit count alone would encourage editcountitis, waste of bandwidth and saving changes more often than we already do... Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to keep my stance on this question...time is equally important. We don't want to encourage rush editing. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure I think there can be time requirements in it, but the time requirements are very overboard. It's like if someone does nothing for 5 years they have more importance than someone who registered later than them. Not very logical.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The service awards do not measure importance or any other "good" thing. They simply and methodically measure time and quantity. The significance of the award is up for personal interpretation. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought time and edits are out of sync. For example, I'm senior on time but master on edits, and I don't use a bot or tool. And let me speak blasphemy-bot edits shouldn't count as much. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevse here, especially because I can't even figure out AWB or Huggle, let alone bots... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I use Twinkle and I see no reason that shouldn't count. (I don't use the others because they turn Wikipedia into a project, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm still a reader before I'm a writer.) — the Man in Question (in question) 23:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I always get killed by the time, so here is my solution: ignore the time. You're welcome to leave the time there, though. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's gospel! 4 T C 13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed reduction of requirements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A clear consensus to reject the proposal has been established. Thanks.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the number of edits required for the lower tier of awards is too high. For example, someone is considered a "novice" until they have 1,000 edits? I would stop considering someone a "novice" anywhere between 100-200 good edits. I think the standards for the lower awards should be lowered when it comes to edit count. They are conceived with the notion that new editors immediately start racking up hundreds of edits within months. Here are the changes I propose, which I view flexibly:

This discussion has been put out of its misery

• Novice (or Burba) – 1 month and 100 edits
• Apprentice (or Novato) – 3 months and 500 edits
• Journeyman (or Grognard) – 6 months and 1,000 edits
• Yeoman (or Most Excellent Grognard) – 1 year and 2,500 edits
• Experienced (or Grognard Extraordinaire) – 1.5 years and 5,000 edits

I think these changes are reasonable and realistic. I also think the gap between experienced and veteren remains reasonable.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would still call someone with 200 very much a novice. I can do more than 100 edits in a day. If anything, I think the system is too lenient. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  Comment - With respect, yours is exactly the mentality that I view as a problem. Editors who assume that since they can do hundreds of edits in a day, other users are just going to start doing the same. Consider the editors who make 50-100 good edits per month. Perhaps they make a couple of edits a day, perhaps they go to school or have a job and edit only on weekends, making a dozen or two edits during that period. Presumably, they would have earned the right to be called, essentially, "beginner" after 100 edits (a month or two of editing experience -- meeting the time requirement), gain experience within a couple of months and no longer would need to be considered "novice" by 500 edits. I see no reason to be a little bit more lenient when giving these users a right to an award.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  The Service Awards are just what their name implies: not awards for talent and invaluableness—these are WP:Barnstars; but awards for time served and edits given. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I think that lower standards for just these awards is okay. I agree that there should be some gap in between experienced and veteran. As a note to the Man in Question, I think that you should take into consideration the fact that Younger editors won't get 100+ edits a day, and I'm not sure whether this applies to you specifically, but most the people who do in fact have 100+ are reverting vandalism, and I know from experience that it takes much more time to undo vandalism without the ability to revert. I tend to edit when I can, and almost never have over 100 edits a day because of school, but that doesn't mean that I'm any less important to the Wiki. I think that these awards are to inspire younger editors to set goals to achieve, and also to have a little fun. I know that when I was in the younger stages of editing I set these goals for myself, but I don't anymore and I think it would make it that much easier if we lower the requirements just a little bit. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  I do take it into account, but by virtue of being a younger editor, you inherently are a novice editor, etc., with or without the award. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on my own experience on the wiki, the current intervals seems to match user maturation accurately. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current levels seem perfectly appropriate in my experience. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reducing the current requirements is not something that I could be in favour, it´s like trying to reach an award more early than it rightfuly should be acquired. Like trying to cheat for it through a change consensus. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Wait -- cheating?? I completely understand the first part of your reason, but cheating? Who are you suggesting is trying to cheat for these awards? People commonly put the award on their talk page based on self evaluation and completely ignore the "requirements" (which cannot be enforced and probably shouldn't be called requirements) anyway. If I consider myself an "experienced" editor, I can put that service badge on my userpage if I wanted to. There's no enforcement. These awards are self appointed and frankly are completely, completely, worthless. If you want one of the awards bad enough to resort to "cheating", you can just take it. There's no reason to try and change the consensus. As stupid as it would be, if I put the "Ultimate editor" userbox on my page, it's not like I would be punished. Not that's something I would ever do. Stinging Swarm ^talk 05:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current levels seem fine... Johnfos (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Some people come here with articles they've written off wiki in word or whatever, and an individual edit of theirs might involve over an hours work. Others like me start fixing typos and linking articles. A system that allowed for this would become over complex, sadly that may seem to undervalue some people's edits by putting them on a par with typo fixers with rampant wp:editcountitis like myself. However there are programs for good and featured content for those for whom 1000 edits is genuinely a big contribution. So apologies to those of you who feel held back by the likes of me, but I feel that the service awards need to have a touch of the lowest common denominator about them, and it should takes a lot of minor typo fixes like my early edits to earn a service award here. ϢereSpielChequers 10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The lower requirements would make the Novice award more or less meaningless. Plazak (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Service awards should really reflect the quality of the edits. An editor doing 1000s of edits just changing some simple punctuation hardly gains any experience (let's be honest: editors with 50,000+ edits fall in this category) but an editor who writes only a couple dozen of good articles can be considered a veteran and merits a service award just as well. I realize this may be difficult to assess, but it is something to consider. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone could have made 100 edits two years ago, but would they still remember everything?  fetchcomms☛ 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed policy re displaying awards not entitled to

Substance over edit count

Is there any possibility that our criterion could be based on actual content rather than edit counts? I do the vast majority of my editing offline in a text editor, and then cut and paste it in all at once. As a result, I have a relatively low edit count, less than 30k at last glance. Yet in comparison to all of the "top editors", the actual content I have added drawfs them. I've found it a little frustrating that this system considers comma corrections to be equally important as 5-page articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a heading to your section here, tweak as desired. Judging substance over edit count is subjective and it would be hard to create a hard-and-fast system like this. –xeno^talk 14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how such an award would be possible—and even if there is some way to pull that off, that would really be a different award than the service award. I guess I'd say that's what ordinary barnstars are for. — the Man in Question (in question) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Substance should be a factor. There are ways to at least put a "flavor" of this into awards? Possibilities? 1) Exclude edits that are reverted, 2) Exclude edits that affect < 5 words, 3) Exclude edits done by anti-vandalism, and other tools, 4) Count many edits done consecutively to the same article as a single edit. The last would involve someone writing a simple tool, but I'd be in favor of that, and would help with coding. (There are a few experienced editors who purposely make a dozen edits where they could easily make one, apparently, since they regularly lord their count over others, with the goal of increasing their edit count. One wouldn't want to encourage honest editors such as Maury Markowitz to turn to the dark side!) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good god, and who is going to audit the user contribs so they can display the correct shiny bauble? This is needlessly complex. –xeno^talk 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Darn, you beat me to it ... I started thinking about how to code a "Service Award Tool" ... it's not a big coding job ... a few hours ... It's not necessary for the tool to review *all* an editor's edits, just a statistical sampling of them. 100 samples or so would give a pretty fair measure of my work, at least. "Why" do it at all? Is it needlessly complex? Yeah, maybe. Smile. What *I* like about the awards is understanding quickly whether I'm dealing with a new editor or a very experienced one. So, for that, no tool is necessary. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, this sounds like a different award. Service, by definition, is not a measure of substance, simply of something (time, edits, whatever) expended. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the awards for number of edits exist. It is completely reasonable to have such a thing. The problem is that the awards themselves don't recognize the number of edits as much as they label the person who displays them. Their names aren't neutral. For example, the award that recognizes someone having 200 edits doesn't acknowledge the person's edit count -- it simply says "this user is a novice". Basically, these awards are awarded based on service but unintentionally apply a label to an editor's experience. Swarm^Talk 21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, that comes down to the simple truth: awards are just for fun. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Must be for fun! And probably too hard to figure out how to monitor. But that said, I think the edit count is a little high for substantive content editors and rewards vandal patrol overmuch, valuable as it is. Maybe not count bot edits or various other types of mass editing, but how can one tell an AWB edit of spelling or bad wikilinking from a manual edit of several articles with the same incorrect info? Or, do we presume an increased ability to use wiki-tools? Except that some don't work for us mac people... Not sure the answer, just some thoughts. Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

True. "Problems" with awards...really aren't that big of a deal. Not worth stressing over at least. Swarm^Talk 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with The Man in Question about this award system; that is for recognizing the number of edits and the time spent here in wikipedia, not to recognize the value of the edits. But, as stated by somebody else above, some editors do not make a large ammount of edits within a day, but just a few (a few regular edits due low time in real life to be in wikipedia or a few edits of huge changes each), this, or the inability to be daily editing (or frequently) and/or the fact that some editors do not use tools like Huggle (which accelerate the edit rate) make it hard (or very very hard) to reach such levels for users who can collaborate substantially and for a long time. And, as also stated above: these awards are just for fun, so I still propose to reduce the edit requirements (number of edits) of the last barnstars, so they can be rightfuly achieved better.

The Man in Question also told me that the last awards are for the editors who have done the most great deal of editing here, and I agree, but I say that reducing the edit requirements will not necessarily make eventually almost all editors (or a big group of editors) to have achieved the highest levels. This because some of them retire, or will have large wikibreaks between edits and will not reach that far. So in conclussion, reducing the requirements is a good way to find a point in the middle of all this... just voicing myself out, cheers. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm.... I already proposed that, here, and you opposed it. Swarm^Talk 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for clarity's sake, you, Swarm, were proposing a reduction of the requirements under 75,000 edits, whereas Damërung wants a reduction of the requirements over 75,000 edits. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see that at first. I assumed, since they were going on about the editors who don't edit that much, that they weren't talking about people with tens of thousands of edits. Swarm^Talk 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact administering such a thing is easy. What you need is a small committee which judges editors recommended to them by themselves or others (you can put a small, static criteria on those who do the recommending to frustrate trolls/vandals) and hands out awards. They can even do a bit of research by asking authorities in areas to verify such things, etc.

Disagreements with judgements could be referred to the Wiki upper-echelons like your ArbCom or whatever, since it should happen relatively infrequently shouldn't create a lot of work.

And gotta say, I sympathise with these content editors a lot, preventing vandalism, etc is very important and without them wiki would be a mess. Without substantive content writers, there simply wouldn't be a wiki.

Maybe they can have an identical list of shiny baubles/grades with completely different requirements and a more flashy outline, greater banner size, etc.

Job done... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.82 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

get rid of the glow

get rid of the glow. looks ridiculous. i like the ultimate award much better than the three before it, as it looks simply like a regular medal, since it has no glow. the ones with the glow look kind of weird. I enjoy these medals, and would rather they be made more suitable for display. does that sound good? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out the section "Renovation proposal" above. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's gone. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

hey, thanks! and thanks for your replies. appreciate it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Veteran vs senior editor

Should veteran editor not be above senior editor? Mootros (talk)

Agree I strongly agree with it. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 15:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. This baffles me. Senior clearly has seniority. — the Man in Question (in question) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. While "veteran" means "Having had long experience, practice, or service", "senior" has more of a general meaning of "superior" or "older". Hmm, no, I don't think it would make sense to put veteran above senior. Swarm^Talk

K i change my mind senior does sound more veteran :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArieScheurwater (talk • contribs)

Discrepancy from the recent updates

Following the recent update, one of the section headers is currently showing one Tutnum title, while the userbox templates are showing a different title.

My assumption is that {{SA-tutnumIV}} and {{sa-tutnumIV-ubx}} were supposed to be updated at the same time as the section header at WP:SERVICE#Veteran Editor IV (or Grand and Glorious Tutnum) was changed ... is this correct? I'll leave it for others who are more familiar with the changes to fix it; I just wanted to point out the discrepancy for those who are involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It was a little late last night when I made the changes. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

New Auto Updating Template Now Available

This template automatically changes the service award automatically when each milestone is achieved so editors will no longer need to keep changing it manually. I believe that a discussion was started about having bot updates the service awards, but this seems like a better choice. So, what do you think? Set Sail For The Seven Seas 313° 1' 0" NET 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you haven´t done it, I would... That was brilliant! but it still needs more explanation in the "usage". - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - The documentation is now a lot clearer and also has examples. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 356° 59' 30" NET 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New image uploaded

I see that File:Editor - bronze ribbon - 1 pip.jpg has been replaced with a version having a red (instead of bronze) star. Was this discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all! Moreover, there's nothing to discuss: red is not bronze, and the bronze star/barnstar is the most commonly used star on Wikipedia. I have restored it. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the same thing has been done with Apprentice Editor (File:Editor - blue ribbon - 0 pips.jpg). I've gone ahead and fixed it but it looks like this is a recurring problem. Lost on Belmont (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they've taken offense on my wall. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a recurring problem - I've just popped over to Commons and had a look at the uploader's contributions - only these two awards were altered, both being early yesterday morning. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to help improve; I'll use the ones I made for my page.-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tutnum VI

I don't see the cigarette burn. mechamind90 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the black splotch on the middle-right of the cover. Compare Tutnums II and III where it's introduced. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot to update awards?

I don't suppose there is a “bot/tool/box” that you can drop onto your user page that will sum the number of edits you have made and work out the time of service on wikipedia and then produce the correct service badge/award on your user page? That is, when you cross the magic threshold, it will update the badge/status automatically. Might save all the questions asked about "do I qualify if …" - and yes, I understand that these badges are just for fun and not offical awards by Wikipedia to editors. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no bot like that that I've ever heard of. Seems unnecessary. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A crucial point ... which just occurred after weeks ... duh ... If the awards or award qualifications are changed ... who will notify all those who have the awards on their page? Will there be "old school" pages that haven't been updated? Will there be any way for a casual reader to determine whether an editor has read about the most recent changes? I smell a bogus debate going on here. Time to drop it. By which I mean any change to the awards at all. No changes are appropriate to arbitrary self-awarded awards. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for change in the policy of awarding Service Awards

In my opinion, the concept of awarding service awards yourself is incorrect. It's like an army telling you to present yourself a service award when you meet the criteria. Also, this concept of self-awarding leads to users placing service awards that may not be appropriate. I feel that service awards must also be presented to the editor by a second party, probably a bot on the editor's talk page just like a barnstar. The editor may then move it to his userpage or do nothing. This concept might also encourage new users who are not even aware of the concept of service awards. Imagine, you are a new editor who just met the criteria for the first award and the service award is presented to the editor on their talk page, what a great deal of encouragement that editor would receive! --JovianEye (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason these awards exist is to be self-awarded. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Some (many?) find the service awards objectionable and would be appalled to be awarded one. Complete removal from politics is a prime asset of the awards. As for people giving themselves unearned awards -- enh. It just shows them to be fools. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the awards, ignore them. You don't have to be concerned with them. And you will never be awarded one, since they are self-awarded. Some people (many people) like this sort of thing. And any award has dissenters—some people find the idea of awards in general to be immoral. These awards are both earned and (by nature of not being subjective) apolitical. This page has twice been nominated for deletion, and has both times royally failed. To award oneself an objective award is not a demonstration of foolishness; to award oneself a subjective award would be. That is why so many proposals for trying to weight the importance of certain kinds of edits over others, etc., are impractical and (might I say?) ridiculous. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• We have plenty of awards to give out to others. The point about these ones is that they are earned through a combination of tenure and contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• These aren't meant to serve any kind of official capacity. To me while they serve some semblance of purpose, they're still rather facetious, just like "barnstars", "cookies", etc. An official system of service stripes would put too much emphasis edit count and length of time here, which alone don't necessarily translate into quality of edits or even amount of experience. The current "system" of only semi-serious recognition is ideal, in my opinion. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:31, 7 Apr 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the Man in Question; as he said above, I feel that a regulation for this is impractical. If you don´t like them you can ignore them. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 15:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the Man in Question. The problem, JovianEye, is that many awards stem from popularity contests. I was rather amused — in being confronted in one of my rare appearances in ANI — that one of the editors supporting me stated that he didn't particularly like me. I accept that: I've been a professional editor for major companies. My job outside of Wikipedia is not to win brownie points with writers, but to improve writing quality. That's a role that seems to work here, as well. However, most other Wikipedia editors are not in that position — for them, the opinion of other editors is an important gauge of performance. Hence, it is appropriate in Wikipedia to have both community awards, and (relatively objective) self-awards. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the service awards are fine. By counting edits only, what they really do is show how much attn someone devotes to Wikipedia. A system based on quality of added content could not be automated requiring, as it would, human judgment. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all

As the original creator of this page, I would like to express my appreciation for all those who have come after and added many improvements and corrections. Thank you all for caring! Herostratus (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been an enjoyable and interesting discussion. What's your next proposal? Piano non troppo (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Now it's time for you to enjoy the fruits of your labour! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 265° 7' 15" NET 17:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey! How about this: giving barnstars to notable people outside of WIkipedia -- for the publicity it'd bring. More detail here. Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

GA and FA plus years?

I could qualify for a really high award if it didn't have the edit count part (I have just above 20 000, but over 5 years experience and a bunch of FAs and GAs). Can we do awards for, say, 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 4, of time served, edit count, GAs, and FAs? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GA's and FA's have barnstars, so they're very different ... these are service awards (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Vanguard vs. Ultimate

I realise that someone put a lot of thought and work into all of this, so I'm reluctant to make even this minor criticism. But it seems that the highest award should be the one titled "Ultimate". As no one has reached the time necessary to earn either of the top awards, it's certainly not too late to change it. Just my opinion.Mk5384 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Help With the Templates

I have one quick question about the aligning of the SA-novice tag. I need it to align to the center so it can work with my user page. How do I override the default setting of aligning to the left and make it align to the center? (Please answer on my talk page, thank you) --Clarince63 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Replied on your talk page as requested. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 357° 14' 30" NET 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But as for me . . . , I would like to align the ribbons left/center/right too. I'm just sayin'. kcylsnavS (kalt) 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your first edit was 12 February 2007, but with just 367 edits (including deleted edits), you rate {{Novice Editor Ribbon}}. The ribbon versions are merely unpositioned images, so you could put the relevant one into a one-row one-column table like this

{| align=center
|{{Novice Editor Ribbon}}
|}

which produces:

Novice Editor

Is that satisfactory? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to do things the knowledgeable way instead of the lazy way, yes. Or, as they say in Bugzilla: WFM. I wanted my ribbon to the right, though, so instead of putting all the user boxes in the table too (I don't like tables), I needed to enter three <br /s>'s after the table. I like the ribbons. Now all we need is for W.org to enable the inline display of the edit count so we won't have to manually update our edit counts. Thanks for the help - it works great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is now possible to align the ribbon with this code

{{Novice Editor Ribbon|align=center}}

which gives

Novice Editor

as an output. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 336° 2' 30" NET 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit count or time

I know this question has been raised before, but should there be some way of receiving an award when you only qualify for one of the criteria (e.g. edit count but not time)? I'm a Veteran in time and a Vetern IV in edit count. I've read above that I can choose between bending the rules and giving myself the award or waiting, but I'd like to propose a different solution: could there be a half-award for achieving only one of the criteria?

I was thinking of one in the style of the Half Barnstar, so that users can keep displaying the correct service award but have another userbox listing their level according to the criteria they are best at. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You could consider this for the time requirement and this for the edit requirement, although they may need a format change. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 14° 23' 0" NET 00:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)