The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep but roll back to April version. This is an unconventional conclusion for an MfD, but I judge that it is the consensus. @AlexTheWhovian: - regard this as the "R" part of WP:BRD, and start a discussion on the talk page if you think your expansion should be retained. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons)[edit]

No need for fine-grading the Service Award, as per discussion. The initial page was created out of a compromise to encourage new editors, without increasing the number of levels of the "main" Service Award. This page has clearly move away from this idea and this MfD invites editors to review the need for such "Incremental Awards" in the first place Mootros (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With respect to the page creator, who obviously worked hard to get this page going, it's too much. And I speak as someone who has an updated "award" on his User page. The idea of "fine grading" will produce more editcountitis, which we don't need. I think we should leave the self-awards just the way they are now. Thanks anyway though. Jus da fax 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This incremental aspect of service awards is not needed. Despite the fact that Iamiyouareyou worked hard to create it in 2011, and despite an approximate hundred-or-so users who are taking advantage of this feature, I don't think it provides such a big motivation to new users. It requires a lot of overhead for a very small gain. Binksternet (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What overhead does it require, other than the work already done to set it up? KSFT^C 18:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my vote to Keep, but roll back to before the recent expansion. Higher level users do not need incremental motivation. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wouldn't keep it as it's been recently expanded, but at the lower levels it is very likely more encouraging and also meaningful, as Registered, Novice, and Apprentice editors achieve a number of eligibilities based on edit counts (eligible to vote for Picture of the Year at 75, Stewards at 600; to apply to use Autowikibrowser at 500, STiki at 1000, etc.). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because it was expended recently A8v (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to April version, otherwise Delete. The expansion is very unhelpful. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or restore to April version at least. Eat me, I'm a red bean (t • c) 09:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this from checking my own editcount to see if I was due a new ribbon, and I will fully admit that my years of service far outstrip the editcounts needed for the related ribbons for those years. However, I'm not here to collect ribbons; I'm here to edit. The service awards are meant to be fun, and the incrementals actually detract from that aspect - no one is better than anyone else for being X level 3 vs. X level 2. If we do stand by the principle that editing is quality over quantity, I think partial increment encourages the opposite, and we have enough editing issues as it stands now. MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after revert to April version that had numbers and names that didn't overlap conflict, and didn't add pointless extra sublevels to the higher levels. The sublevels are meant as encouragement for noobs (and I can buy that maybe they have this effect, though I'm not sure there's a way to prove it), not to be editcount seniority cruft for long-term editors. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, restore to april version, or Fix it, I don't care which, but a delete is excessive. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 02:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I 2nd Gamebuster's stance, for whatever my two coin's are worth. Gecko G (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Restore to April I think the additional sublevels are a bit excessive, but I see no reason to delete the page after a revert has been performed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If not needed any more it should be archived (tagged or redirected), not deleted. There is no serious proposal for deletion here. Do not confuse MfD with RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.