Talk:OpenDesk

Hi RickyCourtney, I see that you have removed the logos from the application and component tables in the Components section in Special:Diff/1341121669/1341126028. The tables in that section are based on the tables in LibreOffice § Included applications in LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice § Components, and OpenOffice.org § Components, all of which include logos for their respective applications. The logos (all of which are freely licensed) are an illustrative aid to help the reader understand the components that OpenDesk consists of, and for this reason, I believe the logos should be restored to the article. — Newslinger talk 19:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe the logos should be used on any these pages. They do not meaningfully aid reader comprehension; rather, they appear to serve only a decorative function. That is not an appropriate use of logos under long-standing practice.

Some editors on Wikimedia Commons have relied on a broad interpretation of the “threshold of originality” to argue that many logos are not eligible for copyright protection. However, that reasoning could be extended to nearly any logo. Even if a particular logo falls below the threshold of originality for copyright purposes, that does not automatically eliminate other potential legal or policy concerns, nor does it override English Wikipedia’s more restrictive content-use practices.

Historically, English Wikipedia has required that logos be used primarily for identification purposes, typically at the top of the article about the organization itself, rather than as decorative elements within lists, tables, or unrelated pages. Expanding their use beyond that narrow identification function moves away from that long-standing principle.

In short, regardless of how liberally the threshold of originality is interpreted on Commons, the use of logos here does not appear to satisfy the core rationale for allowing them in the first place. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

RickyCourtney, the threshold of originality is not relevant here because these particular logos are released under free and open-source software licenses, which explicitly meet the licensing criteria on both the English Wikipedia (Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses) and Wikimedia Commons (c:Commons:Licensing). LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice, and OpenOffice.org, as well as their logos, are also freely licensed.

On the other hand, the Microsoft Office article has a total of 11 logos, 14 screenshots, and an additional image depicting physical packaging art, none of which are freely licensed (because Microsoft Office is proprietary software), with apparently no objections in the article talk page history. If you would like to go to each of the other office suite articles mentioned here and propose that their images be removed, you are free to do so. Until there is consensus to remove these logos from all such articles, I support treating the OpenDesk article like the other free and open-source office suite articles, with freely licensed logos in the article that serve as an illustrative aid depicting the software components of the article subject. — Newslinger talk 19:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Even freely licensed images must still comply with Wikipedia’s content and style guidelines regarding appropriate use. The question is not whether the files are legally permissible, but whether their placement serves a clear encyclopedic purpose.

Wikipedia discourages the use of images for purely decorative effect (see MOS:IMAGEREL and MOS:DECORATION). In this case, the logos are being placed in tables of components in a way that does not appear to materially improve reader comprehension. The text already identifies the software components unambiguously. The logos function primarily as visual embellishment rather than as necessary identification.

With respect to the Microsoft Office comparison: the existence of multiple images in that article does not establish that similar usage is appropriate here. More importantly, Microsoft Word’s logo, for example, is not inserted into a component table on the Microsoft Office article or on List of Microsoft 365 applications and services. The images there are tied directly to identification or explanatory context, not to decoration.

My concern is therefore not about licensing status but about encyclopedic purpose. If there is a clear, reader-centered justification for why including each logo materially improves understanding beyond what the text provides, I would welcome that explanation. Absent that, the current use appears ornamental rather than informative. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that you removed the logos from the LibreOffice article on 2 March in Special:Diff/1341355731, which I restored in Special:Diff/1341358014 per WP:BRD due to the logos being present in the article since 2011. As this content dispute is unlikely to be resolved without input from additional editors, I have started a request for comment below. — Newslinger talk 14:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Schweinchen, in Special:Diff/1341121669, you changed the English-language name of the de:Zentrum für Digitale Souveränität der Öffentlichen Verwaltung (ZenDiS) from "Center for Digital Sovereignty in Public Administration" to "Center for Digital Sovereignty of the Public Administration" (emphasis added for all boldface in this comment). I used "in" because that is what ZenDiS's English-language home page uses, but after digging further, I now see that their English-language site has multiple pages that use "Center for Digital Sovereignty of Public Administration" (e.g "Who We Are", contact page, imprint), and their press page uses both "in" and "of" on the same page. Do you have any thoughts on how to reconcile these differences? — Newslinger talk 19:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've undone my edit because I honestly don't know and the use of "in" appears to be common enough. Schweinchen (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

All right. The Wikidata entry for ZenDis currently has "of" as the English label and "in" as an English alias. Frankly, I have no preference between "of" and "in" as long as the same name is used consistently in this article (i.e. in the infobox and the rest of the article text). — Newslinger talk 19:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the "Software applications included in OpenDesk" table in the Components section include the logos of OpenDesk's applications (as seen in Special:Permalink/1335161316 § Components)? — Newslinger talk 14:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Per MOS:IMG, these application logos are "significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". By illustrating what OpenDesk is composed of, these application logos "serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject". These logos are freely licensed (as files included within free and open-source software releases), so there is no copyright issue that would preclude the use of these logos in this article. Restoring the logos to the OpenDesk article would be consistent with other articles about office suites with freely licensed logos, e.g. LibreOffice § Included applications in LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice § Components, OpenOffice.org § Components, Calligra § Components, and KOffice § Components. — Newslinger talk 14:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

No. I do not believe logos should be used on any of these pages in this context. They do not meaningfully aid reader comprehension beyond the organization’s name alone, and in some cases they may actually be harder to recognize at a glance. Logos do not serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject; they convey nothing beyond a brand or logotype. As such, they function primarily as decorative elements. That is not an appropriate use of logos under long-standing practice. While these specific logos are not eligible for copyright protection, historically, English Wikipedia has required that logos be used primarily for identification purposes, typically at the top of the article about the organization itself, rather than as elements within lists, tables, or unrelated pages. Expanding their use beyond that narrow identification function moves away from that long-standing principle. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The logos are not merely decorative; they serve as aids for identification, as on other articles. However, the revision by OP with the full-text logos is a little clunky, and doesn't match the small, unobtrusive, square icons in similar tables on other articles. I've prepared a table in my sandbox: Special:Permalink/1342544774 with small, square icons instead that might make the argument in favor of inclusion stronger. Semisalsa (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Your version is much nicer to look at, and I support using it. Thank you for making this. — Newslinger talk 15:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You say these logos/icons serve as aids for identification. Could you explain how they meaningfully improve identification beyond the name itself, which already conveys the information clearly and unambiguously? RickyCourtney (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I think it's the same reason icons are helpful on a computer desktop, or in a file explorer. They serve as visual aids for the eye to more quickly locate which item in a list you are looking for. Semisalsa (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)