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:/upwiki/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)

The 18th founding anniversary is coming up—time for a new level of award?

The current spacing of the upper level awards is two years, and is limited to 16(-plus) years. Given that the eighteenth anniversary is little more than two months away, perhaps it's time to create a level above Vanguard Editor/Lord Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia. What say you? (Disclaimer: I'm still working toward the level below that, so this will not directly affect me.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the "million edits" award to come around. The rest is a matter of time. We already have 336 editors who have over 132,000 edits even if they never click "save" again. bd2412 T 02:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm a fan of making an award for 150k, there are 275 editors with at least that many edits. I see someone has already added the box for 150k/18years, its just all redlinked. Any clever ideas as to what the star could be made of, what the special display item could be, etc.? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 07:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have hidden the 150k edits award section until the award is created. SportsFan007 (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

What 150k edits award section?

Yeah. IIRC, there used to be levels for 18 and 20 years, but this was objected to on grounds that that currently unachievable levels should not exist. IMO this is nonsense and it'd be good to create a new level 22 (20 years) as well a new level 21. The people who objected are probably long gone.

Somebody with the skills would need to make the make the images tho.

We're running out of exotic material. Let's see... we've gone thru Bufonite, Lapis Philosophorum, Orichalcum, Neutronium, Mithril, and Neutronium Hologram (used twice). We could keep using Neutronium Hologram forever... some other materials might be Plutonium, plasma, quark matter, strange matter, Francium (the element with the shortest half-life, 22 minutes)... there're a bunch of other candidates. Oobleck... Starlite... we never did use gemstones, such as diamond.

It'd be OK to move names/symbols up a couple of levels. For instance, level 20 is "Highest Togneme" and "Vanguard" this could be moved up to the new level 22, and levels 19 and 20 changed to Grandmaster Editor with Oak Leaves or whatever, This is OK IMO since very few people are at these high levels and they can be individually contacted re the change.

However, it's fine to keep 20 as a "Highest Togneme" and the new levels 21 and 22 could be "Beyond Highest" or "Uppermost" or whatever. Beyond "Vanguard" I dunno... could be Vanguard with Oak Leaves or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Possibly adamant? And "Senior Vanguard Editor"? —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have devised a new metal called "Metallum", but there is no article for it. bd2412 T 17:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Herostratus: Personally I prefer "quarkium" over "quark matter". —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the element with the shortest half-life that we know of currently is the heaviest of them all, oganesson, with a half-life of 0.69 milliseconds for the only confirmed isotope ²⁹⁴Og. We could certainly use that: despite being in the noble-gas column it is expected to be a solid semiconductor at standard conditions. Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the 18th birthday has come and gone, I've gone ahead and mocked up some images for the level 21 (which I am currently calling Senior Vanguard Editor at DocWatson42's suggestion, to be followed by Master Vanguard Editor at level 22 for 20 years/168,000 edits). Mootros could probably do better, since he has access to the source images.

• 
  This editor is a
  Senior Vanguard Editor
  and is entitled to display this
  Unobtainium Editor Star with
  the Neutronium Superstar
  hologram.
• 
  This editor is Lord High Gom, the Most Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to keep the floor plan of The Great Library of Alecyclopedias and its cardboard carrying tube.
• 
  Senior Vanguard Editor

Ideally, although it would require a much larger consensus, would be to sort-of fit the existing pattern and rename 19 and 20 as "Grandmaster Editor II" and "Grandmaster Editor III" and call level 21 "Grandmaster Editor IV" (and similarly rename 20 to "Lord Gom, Highest Togneme" and have 21 be the "Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia"). "Vanguard Editor" could start at 22, when we get there. Thoughts? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

According to which counter? ;-)

Greetings! I know this site is rather an inoffical one, but... According to which counter the number of edits should be counted? ;-)

For example, my Global account information gives me a total of 11 249 edits; XTools give me 10 376 edits (how stingy!); and finally, Wikiscan yields with 11 937 edits (that's what I call generous!).

This is not a laughing matter, though. My wife is waiting for my wiki-promotion eagerly, and if I won't get one soon, I'll sure be sleeping on the sofa until I do. :-( Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume that Global account information would be more accurate than the others as it is built into the system. I check my edit count by using the counter at Special:Preferences. - ZLEA _T\^C 11:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya Actually, I read somewhere that Global account information has a bug and does not count some deleted contributions. I would use XTools for now. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

ZLEA Thanks! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WT:SA

Since WP:SA redirects to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, does anyone have an objection if I change WT:SA to point to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries? Just to make them consistent. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, WP:SA is a disambiguation page. —howcheng {chat} 03:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrative service awards

I got tired of waiting and created Wikipedia:Administrative service awards. Changing of the names might be a worthy point of discussion. Someone else will have to come up with badges, ribbons, userboxes, etc. bd2412 T 23:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

BD2412 I would give them janitor-themed alternative names, such as "Student Janitor", "Intern Janitor", "Full Janitor", etc. I will think of more names later and photoshop some badges when I have time. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not terribly attached to any set of names, though I like having a variety of janitor/custodian-related themes. bd2412 T 00:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412 and ZLEA: I can help design ribbons for the administrator levels as well. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 03:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be great! We have some discussion of award designs going on at Wikipedia talk:Administrative service awards, and ZLEA has put together some ideas in a sandbox in his userspace. bd2412 T 03:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"I got tired of waiting and created..." That's exactly the problem, isn't it? I genuinely pity editors driven in this manner. It must be hard to manage. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Why comment on it, even? bd2412 T 22:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose he was just having a bad day; maybe he found a cat to kick or something and now feels better. =/

On the procedural merits, "I got tired of waiting and created..." is how hella good stuff gets done in this world. It's how these Service Awards came about. There were various discussions about them, and various ideas kicked around, and fine, but it's clear that getting things done here by getting most everyone to agree on it first is some heavy lifting indeed. It's a lot easier to ask for pardon than permission, so I just made them. And some people didn't like them, and still don't, and they were nominated for deletion twice but they weren't deleted. Because the act of creation puts the shoe on the other foot: now it's your job to get people to collectively agree to forbid doing something. And it worked out fine, since people who don't care for this sort of thing still have available their correct and proper response: ignore it altogether.

On the general merits, well as Napoleon said "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." Napoleon, nobody's fool, was just noting was has been known for millennia: you can motivate people do prodigious things for sheer pride, and the attention and respect of their peers, that you will never get them do for money. Some people find that outrageous, unnatural, contrary to a strictly capitalist teheory social relations, or whatever, it appears. 'Tis nonetheless true, and no amount of people's stamping their little feet can change that, really. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion: One local college calls its janitors "maintainers", so that could be on the list. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Maintainer" is not listed in Janitor as another name for "janitor". We should probably stick to names that are easily recognizable as janitor names. - ZLEA _T\^C 10:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits to ribbons?

I've made an edited version of one of the ribbons at User:Vashti/sandbox/Journeyman lv3 Ribbon, so that I could alter its size and superimpose it on my service badge. It seems harmless but I'm a little shy of editing a template. Should I? Vashti (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the utility of altering size; please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a large image, which I wanted to scale down and superimpose on top of my service badge userbox. Vashti (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You can alter the size of the image with a simple file call. For example, [[File:Journeyman Editor lv3.svg|30px]] produces: . There's no need to alter any of the existing templates if you just want to superimpose the ribbon. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 22:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, TIL. Thank you. :D Vashti (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

... oh, but if I do that I don't get the text when I mouse over it. Vashti (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vashti: Try [[File:Journeyman Editor lv3.svg|30px|The Journeyman lv 3, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 8 months and completion of 3,000 edits]] to get . — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 04:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Do minor edits count?

Brevity is the soul of wit, do minor edits count? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes! You can even count edits on other wikis or deleted edits, or whatever you want. Vashti (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 Minor edits are still contributions to the wiki. I, myself, include my edits on Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons, as I don't have as separate service award there. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Vashti and Chris troutman! But do the various ***edit counters*** include the minor edits or not? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Both Special:CentralAuth and xtools count minor edits. Anything found at Category:Wikipedia editing-related user templates draw from one of these sources or let you plug the number in, yourself. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

How about edits where someone asks which edits count as edits? SlightSmile 16:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I dunno, Slightsmile. But does your edit count as edit as well? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Or how about if someone reverts themselves because of a mistake would the original edit and also the revert count as two edits. And fixing one's own typos. What actually does happen sometimes is a vandal doing quick repeated vandalising edits on the same article and I revert them as fast as they make them. I never kept count so I don't know if it's a hundred or a few hundred of my twenty thousand edits that are from quick reverts like that. SlightSmile 22:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If an edit counter counts it, it counts. An edit could be vandalism and it would still count (not that I support vandalism as a method for increasing edit counts). - ZLEA _T\^C 00:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusivity? (or, Gender-Neutral Service Award Titles)

As a longtime but occasional contributor to the magic that is Wikipedia, I hadn't stumbled across these service awards until just recently, but I love the idea. Even more, I love the recognition that some people (like me) just like to be silly and call themselves a Signator or Burba or whatever instead of Registered Editor or Novice Editor, etc.! At an average rate of 1.7 edits per month over the last decade-plus, it's unlikely I'll ever accumulate 96,000 or more edits but, as an editor/aspiring gnome of the female persuasion, I know I wouldn't want to be called Lord of anything if I did get there. Which got me wondering...could we offer alternatives to the alternative titles?

One route might be to offer a choice, including Lx as a riff on Mr/Ms/Mx

• Lord/Lady/Lx High Togneme Vicarus
• Lord/Lady/Lx High Togneme Laureate
• Lord/Lady/Lx Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia

Another option might be to riff further on Lx...it's neutral, yes, but also conveniently recalls "Lux," the Latin word for light (or, metaphorically, knowledge). Could we simply replace Lord with Lux in these exalted titles to create ones that are consistent yet all-inclusive?

• Lux High Togneme Vicarus
• Lux High Togneme Laureate
• Lux Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia

As one more possibility, how about replacing Lord with something else entirely?

• Extreme High Togneme Vicarus or Galactic High Togneme Vicarus
• Extreme High Togneme Laureate or Galactic High Togneme Laureate
• Extreme Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia or Galactic Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia

All objectiveness aside, "Galactic Gom" is my personal favorite! Thoughts? Alsd2 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Well we thank you for your kind words!

I definitely see where you're coming from. But hmmm, I dunno. For one thing various terms are being de-genderized nowadays, and (for better or worse), the formerly masculine word is used when "person" (e.g. "chairperson") won't do: "actor", for instance, replacing "actress".

Is not "Lord" like that, signifying a non-gender-designated mastery of whatever domain is in question?" Especially since "Lady" can, besides signifying a distaff version of that, also designate a generally a female person not necessarily possessing any power, or a mere auxiliary of a lord, the several meanings this being confusing.

Suppose, for instance, that you were to suddenly be made dictator of the Universe. Would you choose the name "Zhan-Tor, Lord of the Universe" or "Zhan-Tor, Lady of the Universe?" (That's assuming that your name is Zhan-Tor of course.) "Lady of the Universe" seems like it could have a meaning similar to "Man of the world".

Lux or Extreme would be OK tho. I kind of like Lord tho. At any rate, the floor is open for discussion.

As to Galactic Gom, my opinion is that is exactly the ideal term that we have been seeking. I'm going to second that.

Thank you for your contributions and avowal of future ones. I believe that there is a template somewhere that, if you put your start date in your code page, will display your service time ("The person has been a Wikipedian for 2 years and 18 days" for instance). I'm not sure where that is tho. Anyone? Herostratus (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm chuffed that "Galactic Gom" is pleasing, tho how did you know that Zhan-Tor was I?! Personally, I'd probably go with "Zhan-Tor, Dictator of the Universe" before calling myself Lord but I do see your point about the potential for "Lady" to be perceived as something lesser--which it would certainly be preferable to avoid.

As for time-in-service templates, there may be more generic ones, but I did find fancy userboxes for contributors who wish to declare membership in the Ten Year Society or Fifteen Year Society, with variants that can calculate your individual length of service! Alsd2 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I also like the idea of "Galactic Gom." The alliteration just feels right.

As far as "Lord," I know that there is real-world precedent for women to use the title "Lord" if it is part of the official title of the office they hold, e.g. Dame Fiona Woolf was the second female Lord Mayor of London. However, I would not oppose a change to the title if that is the decision here. "Lux" has a nice ring to it, in addition to meaning "light." — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point Jkudlick, but these usages of "Lord" by women are fairly unusual; IMHO, the title is still likely to be interpreted as male outside that fairly narrow context.

One other option just occurred, if there's interest: "majestic." This retains the regal qualities of "Lord" without gender connotations, and the -ic ending provides a sense of continuity with Galactic if we were to go with that for the GomHTE:

• Majestic High Togneme Vicarus
• Majestic High Togneme Laureate
• Majestic (or Galactic) Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia

Alsd2 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alsd2: I like "Majestic" in place of "Lord" for the High Togneme ranks, but I still like the alliteration of "Galactic Gom." — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 20:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur on both counts. "Majestic" is the best so far IMO. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

These alternative titles are supposed to be fun and light-hearted banter. If people feel "Lord" is not inclusive or misrepresenting gender, I'm sure we can find something more appropriate. Some of the suggestions seem OK, others are strange in my options.

Replacing the current noun "Lord" with any adjective (e.g. majestic, extreme, etc.) leads to an unusual grammatical construction of two adjectives. I feel we can do better than this. Lord High is an eloquent way of saying a high(er) Lord. The proposal of Lux High and Lady High follows exactly this logic. I personal really like Lux High because it avoids wordiness (Remember the MOS? ;-)) and above all it takes the banter to a new level.

One final point, I very much hope that the existing logic of "Lord Gom" will not be broken; there is a deliberate link to the previous high lords. In a humble way s/he is merely "Lord" and not "High Lord" Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia, because such an editor transcends beyond fancy title and is an encompassing Gom whom other people respectfully can call Lord... or Lux... That at least was my reasoning when I created those Lord titles in conversation together with other editors.

In sum, I would be delighted with:

• Lux High, Togneme Vicarus
• Lux High, Togneme Laureate
• Lux Gom, The Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia.

Mootros (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

May I contribute another suggestion: replace "Lord" with "Grand".

• Grand High Togneme Vicarus
• Grand High Togneme Laureate
• Grand Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia

My thoughts:

• Doubled adjectives aren't unusual in royal and noble styles e.g. "Most High", "Most Noble"
• Keeps the same number of syllables, "Majestic" just feels a bit long. Save the syllables for the more fun made-up words :)
• Gets the alliteration with Gom

Bikeshedding aside, I strongly support any shift away from "Lord" to make these more inclusive. the wub "?!" 00:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The most in "most high" is actually a noun [1], I'd say. Mootros (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I actually like "Grand" very much, for all the reasons the wub lists... Alsd2 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed: every editor who reaches one million good edits should receive a prize of $1,000,000 from the Foundation

Just leaving this here as food for thought. Maybe $1,000,000 is a bit much; perhaps $100,000 would be more reasonable. BD2412 T 22:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe there may be better uses for such monies. Food for some, for example. Non-monetary recognition, fine. Errantius (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Believe me, $100,000 could buy that worthy editor a lot of food. BD2412 T 00:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, you’re timewasting. I’m inclined to remove this episode. Errantius (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)