Forum:Medal System (incentive)

Forums: Index → War Room → Medal System (incentive)

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

As you all know, mainspace editing has died down greatly, even though there is a large overhaul project going on.

Chiafriend12 and I have been discussing a medal system for a while now, and it is going to be implemented now.

Chia has made File:Medal, User of the Month.png. This medal is awarded to the editors who have been User of the Month before.

You can stick these on your userpage, wherever you want.

I apologize to the other admins that we did not discuss this with (namely, all of you), but Chia and I felt that it needed to be implemented to keep the mainspace editing flowing in our community.

More medals will be produced sooner or later.

-- EightOhEight ^Talk 00:28, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Great work. I do hope you realize Darkman and I had a great discussion about an award system on the Soldier of Fortune Wiki, at about the time the idea was conceived, so we knew it would happen. I'm happy they have been implemented and hopefully we can see more action where it's needed now.      00:31, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

As of right now, awards will probably only be given out by admins. Callofduty4, I'd appreciate it if you could help me go through the UOTM list and add Template:Award/UOTM to their page. Also, can you add the Award/UOTM button to my monaco.js? -- EightOhEight ^Talk 00:32, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sure.      00:34, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

This award program seems like a good idea. It might promote mainspace editing. Pvt. Dunn 00:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the idea. It's much more accessible and fair than a Rank system and it provides another avenue of rewarding good editors besides the once-a-month UotM. --Scottie theNerd 02:58, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I also fully support the idea, per Scottie & Dunn. 1^st Lt. CôdExpert ^Talk 03:00, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent idea, Per Scottie & Dunn. Sgt.Maj.Delta 4-7 03:02, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think it'll work. Per Scottie and everyone else. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 10:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I like it, except I have no medals, not even a 6 month good conduct medal.AdvancedRookie 21:26, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think they could be made more exciting... Col. Price25

Further Explanation

Due to the good responses that this thread has gotten, I'll go into further detail.

Right now, Chia has ribbons for being active for periods of time (6 months, 12 months, 24 months).

We're not going to create medals for edit counts because that'll encourage edit whoring.

There'll be medals for participating in the overhaul project that is going on, just to encourage helping. For these, you must provide proof that you actually helped out.

-- EightOhEight ^Talk 03:11, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question. With the ribbons for being active for certain amounts of time, do you have to have never been inactive, even for a few days? Sorry if it's a stupid question, I'm just wondering. Pvt. Dunn 03:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

If you go a few days without making any edits it's not like you've left the community, so unless you go long periods of time without doing a thing it will probably still count. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 03:29, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm....It is an interesting concept which i like very much. Great work guys,great work! Can someone post up the rest of the ribbons so we can see them? Talk 03:19, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

All of the ribbons so far:

• File:Medal, User of the Month.png for being or having been a User of the Month
• for having six months of good conduct
• for having twelve months of good conduct
• for having twenty-four months of good conduct

The device on the ribbon for twenty-four months of good conduct is an oak leaf cluster which indicates that a said medal has been awarded to the same person more than once. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 03:29, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think we could make these a little fancier, but otherwise this gets a thumbs up from me. Nice work Chia. Sgt.Maj.Delta 4-7 04:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I do think they could be jazzed up a bit. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 10:04, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Great work Chia and Eight on the award system! But Ukimies is right. Jazz it up a notch!

2. Can awards be given to non-admins? DevilWarrior11212:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, let's Jazz them up. And how do we collect medal's that we are applicable for. Also we need a page for them. Good job Chia ^{T C E B} 11:21, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the ribbons as they are. They're based off real military decorations, which aren't meant to be snazzy. I'm glad to keep it simple and clear. --Scottie theNerd 11:53, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Per Scottie, I was just coming here to say that they're based off real Navy good conduct medals. They should stay as they are. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 14:41, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of real medals, I suggest a WWII Campaign medal for the Overhaul project. Other historical campaign medals could be used if more projects are needed (e.g. improvement drives, etc.). --Scottie theNerd 15:24, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

How about a victory medal? ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 15:28, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

We're actually only using ribbons to stay organized. -- EightOhEight ^Talk 18:49, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I got one, for reporting 100+vandals you get a purple heart ^{T C E B} 15:29, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a defense medal instead of a purple heart. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 15:31, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty of awarding medals based on vandal reports is that no one's keeping count. --Scottie theNerd 15:43, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

While that is difficult, I've gotta say that I'm counting. But most likely no one else is, so it is difficult. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 17:09, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it would take me 8 min to find out ^{T C E B} 17:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't a uniform method of combating vandalism, so many users won't have any means to keep record. Some users revert, others place vandal tags, others go straight to admins. Again, the actual number of reports isn't as important as the effort behind it. That's why a general good conduct ribbon is more appropriate for general distribution than specific task-based awards. Unless you want to add a V for Vandalism emblem :) --Scottie theNerd 02:26, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Here's another medal ribbon:

• for contributing greatly to a usergroup's cause

This medal would be awarded by senior members of usergroups to other members of the group that they believe have done a lot to help the group and its cause.

To prevent users from specifically doing something just to receive an award, all the medals so far are based on acts that are not quantitative, but either qualitative or something that cannot be rushed. With the idea of a medal for anti-vandalism, I agree that having to count to see if a user has reached the required count would be tiresome, and instead I think such a thing should just be given if someone else notices that the user in question is just doing an all-around great job.

Feel free to shoot ideas at me. These things aren't particularly hard to make. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 04:27, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Whiskey should receive this for his Welcoming work. Warpig3|1|2 04:39, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Another good medal. I like it. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 05:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

CoD Wiki Lieutenant (Senior User) casual ribbon

Hope you guys like it Warpig3|1|2 05:36, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but anyone can be a senior member of a group as long as they've made the group. Also, it's not themed. -- Eight-Oh-Eight 05:46, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

This is the real Distinguished Service Medal used by the US Military, it would be awarded to users who have been active in the War Room, Overhaul, Anti-Vandal work (variations with acronyms maybe?). Warpig3|1|2 05:56, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Some ideas:

• Legion of Merit for CoDwiki admins.
• Vietnam Service Medal for extensive contributions to Call of Duty: Black Ops articles.
• GWOT Expeditionary Medal for extensive contributions to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare articles.
• GWOT Service Medal for extensive contributions to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 articles.
• WWII Victory Medal for extensive contributions to Call of Duty: World at War articles.
• Army Occupation Medal for extensive contributions to Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 3 articles.
• Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for extensive contributions to any handheld Call of Duty article.

Of course, we should have a page listing all available medals and how they are obtained. We can't give medals to everyone for any reason, so we need to be stringent as to what criteria an editor needs to fulfil. It's greatly important that we look at quality not quantity, as Chiafriend said. I've seen lots of sites develop simplistic quantitative measurements, and it really doesn't promote anything other than spam. --Scottie theNerd 07:31, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ribbons for an edit count helps anything. Like Scottie said, it just promotes spam. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 10:52, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Do administrators need a medal, though? They already have several templates and just the act of being an administrator doesn't say anything about the user being good or bad in how they act. Perhaps a medal for good administrating, but I don't think there should be a medal for being in the administration. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 01:45, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Even better, how about medals for "6/12/xx months of continual service to the community as an administrator"? --Scottie theNerd 07:08, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

So, how would you be awarded metals? Just add them yourself? 01:48, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

So far, some administrators have sent out templates to users to tell them that they've received such an award. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 02:17, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Combat Action Ribbon for notable anti-vandal work? -- Griever0311 03:14, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Seems good, thanks Chia. Griever, one like that is needed. 12:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Three new medals:

• for dealing with vandalism exceptionally
• for continuously helping other users when needed
• for greatly contributing with images

I held out on your ideas, Scottie, since you had so many and I wanted to do simpler things first. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman Signatures/Chiafriend12 06:12, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Just adding to the brainstorm :) --Scottie theNerd 06:28, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

How long untill we start sending out awards? 21:55, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

I've given out some already. We need to make the medals into templates...      22:14, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Would non-admins be permitted to submit their own for an admin's approval? Sgt.Maj.Delta 4-7 22:20, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, try to make them in line with the other award templates, some of which you can find at Template:Award/UOTM and Template:Award/24 months.      22:50, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a Purple Heart of sorts for not responding to flamebait?nlmgr 23:39, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Purple Hearts, as I just uploaded two ribbons based off of the real-world Purple Heart medal:

• for helping out during the recent Overhaul project
• for helping out greatly during the recent Overhaul project

--Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 05:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon" - Napoleon. In all seriousness, it's a nice idea, but who/what determines the differences between, say, helping and helping greatly? I very much doubt the admins are willing to go through every user's edit log and see if they made great contributions before letting them collect their medal. So must we apply for the medal and then they'll look over it or what? Epochalyptik 22:26, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Medal List

A more organized list of medals currently available to users of this wiki:

Images

• File:Medal, User of the Month.png|60px. This medal is awarded to the editors who have been User of the Month before
• This medal is awarded for having six months of good conduct
• This medal is awarded for having twelve months of good conduct
• This medal is awarded for having twenty-four months of good conduct
• This medal is awarded for contributing greatly to a usergroup's cause
• This medal is awarded for helping out during the recent Overhaul project
• This medal is awarded for helping out greatly during the recent Overhaul project
• This medal is awarded for dealing with vandalism exceptionally
• This medal is awarded for continuously helping other users when needed
• This medal is awarded for greatly contributing with images
• This medal is awarded to users who have "achieved great things here".
• This medal is awarded for contributing greatly to games released before Call of Duty 4
• This medal is awarded for contributing greatly to games released after Call of Duty: Roads to Victory

  Hax 217    talk-page  03:29, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Templates

• Template:Award/UOTM
• Template:Award/6 months
• Template:Award/12 months
• Template:Award/24 months
• Template:Award/Overhaul
• Template:Award/Overhaul/OLC
• Template:Award/UserHelpfulness
• Template:Award/Antivandalism
• Template:Award/UsergroupUsefulness
• Template:Award/ImageContributions
• Template:Award/OverallAchievement

  Hax 217    talk-page  03:30, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest that a page for the medals be created, like Call of Duty Wiki: Userboxes for the userboxes   Hax 217    talk-page  21:23, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the list up Hax. It was really unorganized before.Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)

Do good conduct medals start from when the metals were created, or since the user has been good? And I think we do need a page for them. 21:53, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Since the user was 'clean'. If you stayed clean for 6 months or more, you get the '6 months award', etc.   Hax 217    talk-page  23:16, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Hax. 20:06, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hax, are you forgetting these three medals?

• for dealing with vandalism exceptionally
• for continuously helping other users when needed
• for greatly contributing with images

--CodExpert 00:10, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Added to list  Hax 217    talk-page  03:29, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

This Medal System is a good idea for a while, like maybe a year or two, but soon everyone will be getting Medals and they wont be significant anymore. Beastly20

It would be significant for users to come, as they would learn about the idea and it could insire them to work hard. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 22:52, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

I know that, and I'm all for this system, but I say we keep Medals to a minimum and only reward them to users who have made signifigant mainspace edits that actually HELP the page, not add on minor information or change something that doesn't really matter. Beastly20

I see what you mean, but even small edits matter. As they help to improve the wiki. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:03, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

I just don't want to see a bunch of medals on a bunch of userpages. The medals need to make people feel like "wow, I just earned a medal for working hard to improve the wiki". I am STRONGLY against the medals being earned for Userpage decoration, like when people boost for highly sought for Titles and Emblems. Beastly20

Here's what I have to ask what would the exact specific details of medal earning be? Because from what I can tell medals are given by admins to people who meet the requirements correct me if I am wrong. But I have a problem with the descriptions of 'greatly contributing with images' and 'continuosly helping other users when needed' for the second one it would mean someone who helps users with problems when needed but how many times would you have to help others to get it? If it is given at admin's descretion then theoretically one admin could give it to a person who helped ten users while another admin could give it to a person who helped five users. That would be unfair and could cause alot of people to get it to a point where it is not unique and is like the back in the saddle achievement in Modern Warfare 2 nobody thinks it is special because so many people have it. I think that i we want them to be special then we need better requirements or they will just become something that most people have because there is no set in stone standard and of the people that would have it few would have earned it.Foxtrot12 04:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Discretion is an essential part of awards. Otherwise, they merely become milestones. The things we acknowledge in the awards scheme cannot be measured. How would you measure criteria for being helpful, for example? Additionally, if we set specific requirements, it would encourage people to contribute solely for awards rather than to help the wiki, which is often reflected in poor quality but huge quantity. Medals reflect what people do rather than give users a target to go for. In real life, the criteria for awarding medals is deliberate ambiguous unless specified for a particular purpose. A soldier does not join the army to earn medals; and when he does get one, he isn't given it because of how many hostiles he killed. Also, if we have specific requirements, it's unfair for users who have contributed significantly but don't fulfil the measurable criteria. The classic example is the quality of edits versus quantity, but others apply too in terms of time, effort and consistency. Overall, I trust that the admins aren't selfish corrupt enough to make fair calls on who deserves awards. --Scottie theNerd 09:43, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't want to see "In order to join the Call of Duty Wiki Clan, you must have at least 250 edits and 5 Medals." That would mean alot of medals on alot of userpages and like i said above, I want to look at someones userpage and see 2 or 3 medals and say "he probably worked hard for those".

What I am trying to say is that I think it really should be fair because given at descretion it could mean that one person did much more deserving work than somebody else but the other person who did much less quality work still gets it because of opinion. while setting milestones may not be the perfect idea it has flaws. It is not always fair to give out a medal based on opinion because people's opinions are far different than others just off opinion could lead to people getting it when they don't deserve it and people could get the medals when they did significanty less quality work. And for quality vs. quantity it could simply be looked at if someone has quantity do the edits have quality. And setting milestones can be positive knowing that people know what they are going for and would likely help the wiki in the process if the person does not then they do not deserve the medal but quality and quantity can be combined it is not impossible to have many quality edits. And in that way the milestone does have its benefits but descretion while it has benefits allows for someone doing a lot less work and getting something while another did a lot of work got it and actually earned it.Foxtrot12 18:34, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think we'll come across corrupt admins who dole out decorations without proper consideration. Like I said, the things we are rewarding aren't measurable. There's not much choice in the matter. --Scottie theNerd 10:46, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yea sorry my mistake. I was looking at the onces like this ^Talk 01:30, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

I took Scottie's recommendation of medals for contribution to articles by game and made the following two medals:

• for contributing greatly to games released before Call of Duty 4
• for contributing greatly to games released after Call of Duty: Roads to Victory

I decided against making all those individual medals because they would have been tedious to make, and also because someone may work on an array of articles that span multiple games without ever working enough on one specific game to receive an award. By dividing the series down the middle of 2007 into a group for the early series and another for the later series, similar games are bundled together.

A trend I noticed is that early games had the player fighting the battles of the wars while the more recent games had the player winning the wars they were fighting, so I named the medals in a fashion to match: "Content Offensive" (originally named "Content Campaign" but was changed to prevent confusion) and "Content Victory". Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 01:10, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Finalization

I've written up a draft for the project page that would go along with the officialization of the medal system at Call of Duty Wiki:Awards. I've added a sort of log to most of the awards' sections to document who received the award when to prevent users from "stealing" medals. Also included in the page are what would be the official criteria(s) for each award.

A new award I've added is the Medal of Achievement, which would be our form of a Medal of Honer that, instead of applying to one situation, applies to a user's whole time here in general.

Something else that should be decided upon here is whether it is existing administrators that hand out the medals or members of a committee that is unrelated to adminship and whether users file requests for medals or they are given ut at the discretion of those with the ability to hand them out.

Award templates also will need to be made for each medal.

Any comments or feedback? Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:00, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I can has "YAY:D"? Darthkenobi0^(talk) 21:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Per your questions:

I believe that the Admins should hand out the awards.

Users need to file a request for award as Admin obviously cant keep track of every user deserving of any award. Talk 21:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Now to address your actual points, I believe that both a group of selected users should hand them out at their discretion, this group would include the users that could neutrally award medals and would probably include admins. Darthkenobi0^(talk) 21:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's that great to require users to "request" medals. It goes against the spirit of the award, as you are meant to be recognised for your work, not ask for it to be recognised. A lot of users who "deserve" medals will not ask for them. To make things more accessible and within the spirit of the award, I think we should have an open-nomination page similar to UotM in which any user can nominate someone else for an award. Users do not vote on it, but the admins decide whether or not the nomination warrants a medal. This is quite similar to how real militaries issue decorations, where an officer would forward a candidate's name and it is reviewed by a higher-ranking officer. --Scottie theNerd 04:22, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Even though it was intended as a joke, Medal Patrol is a good idea! Honestly though, there are many users who can potentially be unrecognised of their work as they stay in the shadows. We should be frequently keeping an eye out, and asking for medals should be allowed... in the sense that certain users (who take a leading role in the Medal System maintenance) should be chosen to receive messages by users who think they should be given the medals and that they aren't recognised for their work. A request system in my opinion works, but it's try it takes away the spirit. There should be some way of asking to get on there, though - otherwise many users will go unnoticed. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 17:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I belive there should be some sort of commitee to hand out theses medals. Like some volunteer users and the Administrators. As for asking for medals, that should not be allowed as it well, as Scottie said, "It goes against the spirit of the award, as you are meant to be recognised for your work, not ask for it to be recognised." Would a user rather be recognised for their work and feel more appreciated? Or would a user ask for a medal so he can be recognised and appreciated? I would go with being recognised, not requesting to be. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 20:00, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

"The COD Medal Commitee"? I don't know, but CodExpert is right. Admins and other users should hand out the medals. Callofduty4 handed out most medals to other users for record of time on the wiki and great edits. Scottie is also right. Here's a rough layout:

• Call of Duty Wiki: Requests for Medals

• "Example - Medal of Acheivment"

The voting should also be set out like an RFA request. There's my explanation. DevilWarrior11220:24, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Having votes on each medal awarded seems too bureaucratic and unnecessary, and I don't think we need a separate project page for nominations for medals. A subpage of the main project page would do. I also don't think that nominations of others should be the focus of how to get medals, because then if someone can't ask for a medal themself they could always get a friend to nominate them. I think that whoever it is that has the ability to hand out the medals should hand out the medals without announcing it prior so it is of surprise to the recipient more often than handing out medals because it was recommended that they do. However, the theorized problem that it's hard for someone to keep track of how everyone is doing definitely exists if most of the medals are given out without specific request, but if multiple people are all keeping a little eye out at once, then the problem should be lessened.

Personally, I'm for the committee idea because handing out medals has nothing to do with a sysop's core duties and it doesn't seem right for it to be another thing they have to attend to, whether or not they care. I think a committee made up of dedicated volunteers who are specifically going to spend some time dealing with the project would make it run better than a dozen people who aren't necessarily interested. But in the case of awards that are given automatically or nearly automatically (those being the Good Conduct Awards and Medal of Editing), I don't see why admins wouldn't be able to help and give them out, since they would be more common than other awards, and, so far, at least, some people have been overlooked in terms of receiving Good Conduct Medals when they are long overdue to being able to receive one. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:49, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the idea of having a commitee to deal with handing out medals and would volunteer for being on such a commitee, however if I am going to be on the commitee then I would ask that either the user request the medal themselves or have someone nominate the deserving user. Either, or, doesnt matter to me. I wont be going looking for users to give medals to as that would take up way too much time. Talk 22:15, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Also there is absolutely no point in making people put their requests/nominations up for a vote like an RfA. Either you deserve it or you don't. Why would anybody want to bring politics into the matter? Talk 22:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally against having a person or committee doling out medals as a "surprise". It's not enough to have a group of people keeping watch on the wiki to see who gets what medal -- that's an entire job in itself. I think the committee is a great idea, but we really need a step in which a potential recipient must be nominated either by another user or by another member of the committee. It doesn't matter if a "friend" nominates them, as they are judged on their merit rather than their nomination. --Scottie theNerd 07:13, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why are we treating this as one or the other? We could allow users to nominate others, request medals they feel they have earned (such as the usergroups usefulness, though that is awarded by the senior members of an official group), while allowing any users that actually wished to "retire" or take a "break" work by looking for those deserving of medals, which I'm sure some would do. It would be something we could implement, in which a user could say they were "On Break" and serving on the committee. Darthkenobi0^(talk) 07:45, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with being recognised is a better achievement, but what if your hard work goes unnoticed? People would really need to keep an eye out, and some people should be chosen to be the leaders of the medal project and should be open to occassional reminders. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 16:13, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

The idea is good but I don't think the images themselves are very good as they look like colour rectangles with the odd picture in the middle, I'll scratch up and image later on an example. ^Talk 09:50, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

They're based off real decorations, with only the colour palette being different. Nothing looks poor about that, in my opinion. These are military-themed awards, not reading certificates given to school kids. --Scottie theNerd 14:18, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yea my mistake. I was looking only at the one below which I wasn't a big fan of.

^Talk 01:33, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this. This forum needs to be finalized. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 12:35, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a league of users dedicated to handing out medals to users. Not necessarily all the administrators. It seems I've given out the bulk of the medals, it would be good to have more users giving them out. There also should not be an arbitrary number for how many vandals you need to deal with to earn the Anti-Vandalism medal, or any other medal. One could deal with 100 vandals fairly, or deal with 300 vandals unfairly. The former would win the medal, of course. Also, users should not go around asking for medals. It ruins the spirit.      13:04, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, isn't the point of the medal system to give users recognition for their work?

And as I have said, I believe there should be a commitee group made up of volunteer users and administrators, I would have complete faith in the ability of a commitee group to hand out the awards fairly and to all users that deserve a medal. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 13:11, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Admins should watch some specific users, if they see them doing outstanding work (etc. very good contributions) They would know and would award the user for their outstanding work. --Soldier 13:31, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TBSoldier. Admins could check some users' recent activity such as uploading images, or overhauling pages. Or users who do so could inform an admin that they are participating in overhaul projects/overhauling bad pages etc. - 13:51, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think that handing out medals should be up to the admins, and users can't request them. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 14:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Dunn's right.DevilWarrior11214:40, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this again. I say this should be how the medal system will operate:

• Users may not request medals. - That way the spirit of the award is maintained and users will be recognized for their work.
• There should be a committee consisting of administrators and volunteer users. - That way we will have more then enough users to hand out the awards to those who deserve them.
• The committee must agree one who will receive a medal. - That way some one won't give a medal to a user only because they are their 'buddy'. This will not be like RfA/RfB voting, but perhaps they can discuss who will receive a medal via talk pages/IRC.

I am open to more suggestions but this is a small draft of the way I think the medal system will operate. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 17:36, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Do the commitee themselves receive medals? DevilWarrior11217:50, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Good qeustion. Yes. Another member of the committee would award the other member an award. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 17:52, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

I have changed my mind somewhat per CodExperts latest bump. I now agree that the user may not request the award. The point of having a group of admins AND users appeals to me. As far as his last point is concerned, even if the it is not like he says"RfA/RfB voting", the group will still have to come to some kind of consensus. And to answer devil DevilWarrior's question, following the "All editors are equal" policy, why wouldn't the "group" members be eligable? in order to recive any award they would have to come under the scrutiny of the group also. Talk 18:32, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

"...via talk pages/IRC."

I don't think that discussing via talk page would be okay- the intended recipient may see the discussion and ruin the "surprise". Otherwise, the idea is fine. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 18:23, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

And doing it like an RfA will also give away the surprise, what do you think should be the way for the committee to reach a consensus? <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 18:25, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

IRC, on a separate channel for the committee. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 18:27, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

The group could go to a private channel ad discuss the issue at hand. That should not be a problem. Talk 18:31, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

How are we going to sort out who's going to be in the committee? I support the idea of a private IRC channel. Hit me up on IRC now.      18:35, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I apologize for not being able to write up an actual proposal explanation, but I would like to make a final vote to make Call of Duty Wiki:Awards official in revision I made recently that made information on the committee a subpage, added the Real-Life Project Contributions Award, and dealt with some other bits of organization.

In the future other medals would be able to be adde, so it's not like we're stuck with the set that is currently up to the end of time or anything.

Any final input would be appreciated, especially pertaining to the committee subpage, as not all of the information about the committee was discussed in full detail before people started getting staffed for it. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 17:36, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we do have a large collection of medals but it is true that a few more would be nice. I think this project is now very near completion and if we go with what Chia proposed here it should be complete. I'd like to see this become official.      22:18, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

::I also agree. We do have a nice medal count but some more would be better. --CodExpert 17:23, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Vectorizing

Simple medals MUST be converted to SVGs (vector images). SiPlus 15:36, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but don't ask me - I have Vista! --Tigernose Chat • Edits 16:11, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why? Talk 08:38, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Because SVGs look good on any size of images, and, size of SVG medal file is much lower than size of raster version. SiPlus 09:11, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

It's really not that important. Talk?

True say, we're not going to be resizing the medals anyway, but vectorising is needed for images that will be resized (never vectorise complex images like screenshots). --Tigernose Chat • Edits 18:32, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

They look massive anyway, so they're going to be resized.DevilWarrior11206:12, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

The original intent of these images includes the full-size image being posted on a users talk page as a reward. If someone wants to add a miniturized version of these medals to their profile, they are welcome to, but that itself was not the original intent, therefore, I find no important use to what you are proposing. Members are welcome to convert medals to SVGs anytime they want to add them to their user page, but having to convert all of them for decoration I see a little far-fetched. Talk?23:59, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

We're not making them any larger, which is the point of .svg. All in all, we don't need vectorising and the medals are good as they are now, seeing as they are actually real medals. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 17:02, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

To get it straight to the point, converting the files to .svg format is unnecessary, and will take a while, as not many users know how to do this, and .svg hasn't been a widely used format on the wiki anyways. Most users (and people in general) are more familiar with formats such as .jpg and .png   Hax 217    talk-page  01:51, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

And why is the title all in caps? Hax 217 (Talk | Editcount) 01:57, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the title for ya. ^{Talk? Edits}14:33, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Can We Finalize?

Can we finalize this forum already? It was started on 23May2010. The dicussion is going sideways. The discussion above (vectorizing) has nothing to do with the original proposal and is not needed. Let us move on and stop talking about things and do it already. It has been over a month since this forum was started. Do we really need to keep hashing this over? Talk 04:00, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping Talk 00:41, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I am bumping this forum. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 23:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Bump, we need some more votes. Dolten Lets Talk 02:26, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Voting

Support:

1. Support — A few people have worked long and hard on this project and more than a few ribbons have been given out already. The actual Awards Commitee can be sorted out next. Talk 04:32, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
2. Support — This needsd to be closed and the Committee will be done anyways.DevilWarrior112 ^{Talk Edits}
3. Support — Per my reasoning above, and per Whiskey35. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk)
4. Support — Per Whiskey. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 14:10, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. Support — It's time to close this, everything is finalized and a committee is now under construction. Time to put the Medal Stystem on 'Go'.Talk?01:34, August 3, 2010
6. Support — This forum's been active for 3 months. Time to close up. Rambo362 02:51, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
7. Support — Achievement system is for quantity, and medals are for quality. Both should be on wiki. >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 07:55, August 3, 2010 (UTC)\]
8. Support — Per SiPlus. 15:49, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
9. Support — It's about time this thing was finnished. Dolten Lets Talk 16:11, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Closed - Vote passed and we've been giving them out for a while. Darkman 4 22:26, August 30, 2010 (UTC)