Template talk:UserAnniversary

Unification

Is there any particular reason why this template merely links to user pages... and doesn't just have all of the data actually exist in this template, or perhaps subpages? Is this just a case of "someone else made this" and not wanting to tamper? Or is there another reason for it? User:Thirty7/Sig 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is related, but is there also perhaps a way to change the 1 and 3 year badges so that they either reflect who actually gave them, or are generic like the others? Felderburg 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The original anniversary badges were separate templates, each created by different admins who (at the time) defined them as their own user templates. When I started going through the user list and updating the anniversaries, I was simply placing the appropriate template reference (or replacing the existing reference with the template for the next year) on the user pages. After about a year of that, I decided that it would be much easier to have a single template with a switch based on the anniversary year that referenced the existing templates. (Thus the original editing comment when I created the template). And that's how this was born.

Later still, I realized that I could use the {{age}} template and never actually have to manually update a user's anniversary again. I just didn't get very far into replacing the references before we got hit with the shutdown notification and got completely distracted. It's only really now that I'm starting to peel myself away from moderating the Titan boards and managing the Twitter feed enough to start checking the Recent Changes list again.

So, tl;dr version: After a long time of not being very smart about how I was doing things, I started getting lazier and this is just how I chose to implement it at the time.

As for changing the names on who awards the badges: we could probably set something like that up, but the existing templates are a reflection of the admin that created the badge. Not that there's any consistency - particularly given that I created all of years 3-6. Rather than make the templates reflect the person that added the anniversary badge to the page, it might be better to change them to generically reflect "Paragon Wiki" wishing them a happy anniversary. The only real argument against that is based on pure nostalgia.

--Eabrace 07:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with using {{age}} so that it auto-updates is that the user won't be notified when it changes. Not much point in wishing someone a happy anniversary if they aren't going to know about it. Making it automatic also undercuts the somewhat personal nature of it, IMO. -- Sekoia 13:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really disagreeing with that, either.  :) Eabrace 17:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

One nice thing about auto-updating the message, though, is that you don't have to worry about missing someone's anniversary. Case-in-point, Archabaddon just updated his user page in the past couple weeks, and the last anniversary posted was for the two-year mark, even though it's been over five years since his first edit. (I'm not pointing fingers, just making an observation.) This leads me to some other questions:

• Is there a date-sorted list of all first user edits that's used to make the updates?

• Are all users checked each time there's a pass made for new anniversaries?

• Is there a minimum threshhold of edits that a user is required to make before they qualify for anniversary tracking?

• Should all users continue to be checked for new anniversaries, or only active ones? (I realize that Felderburg and I have made the lion's share of edits since the shutdown, but this question isn't asked to bring us special attention. It's just to raise awareness and discussion about future options.)

I think noting a user's edit anniversary is great and a fun little nod we give to thank them for contributing. But, thinking about the ease and thoroughness of maintaining the program in the future, automation might have some weighty benefits worth considering. — talk / contribs 17:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)