Add ability to override sponsor section titles

[mattstratton]

Connected to #14440

Today, when you set a sponsor level, that word is put in front of "sponsor(s)" and all the other places that sponsorship is referred to (i.e., if the level if "Silver", it will be referred to as "Silver Sponsors"). A case has come up for sponsorship levels which the organizers would prefer to not include the word "sponsor".

I would suggest that this could be implemented with an optional override on the title for a sponsor level (similar to URL overrides on the navigation):

nav_elements: # List of pages you want to show up in the navigation of your page.
  - name: propose
    url: https://talks.devopsdays.org/devopsdays-chicago-2025/cfp

so something like this:

sponsor_levels:
  - id: platinum
    label: Platinum
    max: 2
  - id: gold
    label: Gold
  - id: academic
    display: Academic Supporters

It would be confusing slightly, because it's like "Label" is what is used if you want "...Sponsor(s)" appended, and "display" is the override. Maybe it would be called display_override to be clear?

[toshywoshy]

I prefer to have display_name and have it fall back to the default code if this key is not available.
Also what would happen if someone adds label and display_name which should take precedence?
I would say label as that is the original way

[toshywoshy]

I created a PR #14458 with display_name
The changes to the code are quite simple

[phrawzty]

Possibly unpopular opinion, but I would argue against this.

If you have entities that are sponsoring the event, those are sponsors. That can mean money, but it can also mean donating a venue, providing advertising, or (as is the case with the event in question) time for their employees to be local organisers.

All of the non-human entities are sponsors, in that they are allocating resources to the event, be it cash or person-hours.

Sponsors is the correct nomenclature.

[mattstratton]

Generally speaking, I agree with @phrawzty but wanted to open this to discussion before making the change.

I suggest we keep this issue open for a little bit to get others to weigh in before merging any related changes.

[mattstratton]

I created a PR #14458 with display_name The changes to the code are quite simple

Yeah, my hold off wasn’t because of complexity but more of “should this be done” :)

[toshywoshy]

So @phrawzty your opinion may or may not be unpopular, however I feel there is some inconsitencancy in our logic.

Sponsors are indeed entities that contribute to the event, as you state, however I would add that organizing or speaking does not count as sponsoring.
This is where I feel we need more clarity, as in a previous discussion we clearly said that speaking is not sponsoring and sponsoring is not speaking.
I tend to apply this rule to organising, as this would otherwise mean that the employer of someone would become a sponsor.
While I think we're on the same page here, your definitions leave ambigious options.
So I wouldn't say non-human entities are sponsors, as this leaves a big back door open to our previous discussion on speaking vs sponsoring.

You are right in that the correct nomenclature is sponsors, however this may not translate always the same way into other languages and dialects.

Another factor to consider is sponsor levels that are not in the sponsor document and that are more arbitrary and based upon the organisers adding these entities for special reasons.
For example Community Sponsor, aren't really sponsors, so I would prefer to have this category named as Community Supporter, also what is a Partner Sponsor?

Maybe we should add a supporter section?
However the display_name options seems better for the number of times it will be used.
Or we could hardcode the exceptions, if community then use Community Supporter and for other such special cases.

[aameen79]

In our case @phrawzty these entities are not sponsors, they are participating in organizing and preparing the event, plus the support

[toshywoshy]

Would it be better to have them listed under organisers?
As for supporting, why not add the organisation as a support sponsor or community sponsor?
Is it just the word "sponsor" that is the hindrance?

[phrawzty]

Would it be better to have them listed under organisers?

Humans are organisers. Incorporations are sponsors.

As for supporting, why not add the organisation as a support sponsor or community sponsor? Is it just the word "sponsor" that is the hindrance?

In this one specific case, apparently that's the issue, yes.

[toshywoshy]

Would it be better to have them listed under organisers?

Humans are organisers. Incorporations are sponsors.

I was somewhat less specific, the humans of those organisations/incorporations should be indeed listed, not the entire organisation.
I suppose there will be several humans supporting the event from those incorporation, they could be listed as organisers.

As for supporting, why not add the organisation as a support sponsor or community sponsor? Is it just the word "sponsor" that is the hindrance?

In this one specific case, apparently that's the issue, yes.

I am now not sure if the option display_name is better, hardcoding several expections or creating a new supporter section

[aameen79]

Would it be better to have them listed under organisers?

Humans are organisers. Incorporations are sponsors.

I was somewhat less specific, the humans of those organisations/incorporations should be indeed listed, not the entire organisation. I suppose there will be several humans supporting the event from those incorporation, they could be listed as organisers.

As for supporting, why not add the organisation as a support sponsor or community sponsor? Is it just the word "sponsor" that is the hindrance?

In this one specific case, apparently that's the issue, yes.

I am now not sure if the option display_name is better, hardcoding several expections or creating a new supporter section

Adding a supporter section with flexibility of naming the category seems a good solution to me