Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Cerebral726 in topic Using icons for teams in race reports
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Using icons for teams in race reports
Not entirely relevant to this page in specific, but there wasn't any other place I'd put it.
Saying, for example, "Lewis Hamilton of Mercedes" makes it so a lot of space is needed just because the name of the teams needs mentioning, while an easier approach would be to use an icon, made into a template so it's easier to use: "
Lewis Hamilton" or "
Alexander Albon"
Now there are some problems with this such as it being expensive to load. I'd leave it up to you to check the trade-offs. Mohammad.darg (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- This only works if everyone knows what these symbols mean. Which they don't. Only F1 fans will reconginse Williams logo. Does anyone know what Toleman's logo was? I don't think so. The only positive is that it saves a small bit of space. The negatives are endless. SSSB (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Any question of whether or not this is good for users is irrelevant, there's simply no way this would be compliant with licensing requirements. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is compliant. We already have the logos in the articles for the Constructors. SSSB (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Please re-read WP:Non-free content and WP:Logos as this is unequivocally prohibited. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is not "unequivocal". This is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be, after all, all the logos appear on the Wikipedia pages of the respective constructors (Scuderia Ferrari contains the Ferrari logo). From WP:LOGOS: "long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes". Several of the logos contain the statement "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." (File:Logo Williams F1.png as an example) and all the others could arguable be allowed under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The only reasons to argue that it wouldn't be allowed under would be because it doesn't fufill criteria #3 and #8 under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. But again, this is something that could be debated. It is not unequivocal. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is a shocking misrepresentation of policy and not something I would normally expect from you. Such use of logos is clearly not minimal as required for the use of non-free content, and is clearly very replaceable (by prose). Again, such use of logos is very explicitly disallowed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you appear to be the one not understanding the situation. The vast majority of these logos is not subject to copyright simply because they don‘t pass the trehold of originality. Those files are in the public domain and the non-free content simply doesn‘t apply to them. They aren‘t non-free. For the few that are, stricter limitations do apply. There are other more important reasons why this proposals are unworkable though. Tvx1 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a moot point, since the Red Bull, RB, Ferrari, and Aston Martin logos unambiguously do pass the threshold of originality, and depending on which version you want to use the Kick Sauber and Mercedes may do as well. They are non-free. So unless you're seriously proposing only doing this only for 50% of the teams (which would be comically stupid) then it does not even slightly matter if a few of them aren't subject to policies on non-free use, no matter how poorly you interpret copyright policies. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you appear to be the one not understanding the situation. The vast majority of these logos is not subject to copyright simply because they don‘t pass the trehold of originality. Those files are in the public domain and the non-free content simply doesn‘t apply to them. They aren‘t non-free. For the few that are, stricter limitations do apply. There are other more important reasons why this proposals are unworkable though. Tvx1 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is a shocking misrepresentation of policy and not something I would normally expect from you. Such use of logos is clearly not minimal as required for the use of non-free content, and is clearly very replaceable (by prose). Again, such use of logos is very explicitly disallowed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is not "unequivocal". This is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be, after all, all the logos appear on the Wikipedia pages of the respective constructors (Scuderia Ferrari contains the Ferrari logo). From WP:LOGOS: "long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes". Several of the logos contain the statement "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." (File:Logo Williams F1.png as an example) and all the others could arguable be allowed under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The only reasons to argue that it wouldn't be allowed under would be because it doesn't fufill criteria #3 and #8 under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. But again, this is something that could be debated. It is not unequivocal. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as we should we using names not logos, as just logos violates the MOS, and names are easier for casual readers to understand. Also, some of the logos are likely copyrighted, and so this also violates WP:Image policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Please re-read WP:Non-free content and WP:Logos as this is unequivocally prohibited. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is compliant. We already have the logos in the articles for the Constructors. SSSB (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: Fails MOS:NOICONS and is a total non-starter for that reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, clear MOS violation. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)