Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, NeverDoING!

Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ລາວ | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Museum buildings has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at [[{{{2}}}|its entry]]. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Khndzoresk_Church has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at [[{{{2}}}|its entry]]. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Well-read MountainMan (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Learning programs has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at [[{{{2}}}|its entry]]. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Category moves

Hi @NeverDoING! I saw you recently rename many categories for people associated with universities, e.g. Special:Diff/1173343314. Has there been any discussion establishing a consensus to make these moves, or policy that backs it up? If no: There are perhaps thousands of categories affected by this restructuring, so this is not something you should be doing unilaterally. If yes: Please please please start using edit summaries when you do moves like this so that people know what consensus/guidance you are basing your actions on and don't have to spend effort inquiring about it as I am having to do here. Sdkb ^talk 19:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Οἶδα, I see you doing similar moves, e.g. Special:Diff/1199179846. I'd appreciate some communication around this. Sdkb ^talk 22:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me here, Sdkb. My intent is to simply align these category names with the broader category structure on Commons, e.g. "Geography of [place]", "Culture of [place]", "History of [place]" and so on and so and so on. Given those standards throughout the system, at the highest levels of category trees, naming categories like "Campus of Scripps College" aligns them with the system, rather than treating these university-related categories or other such categories differently, when most of these catgories are only named differently as a result of them simply being duplications from the corresponding category name on English Wikipedia (which has its own category naming standards) and have simply managed to remain here at those names. I am aware that there is great inconsistency that exists throughout the category system, as categories are rapidly created by anyone and everyone, at any name they choose, with little done to maintain or harmonise them, almost to an unfathomable degree if we're being honest. But that is not consensus. I am not aware of any Commons policy or consensus that supports constructions such as Category:University of Cambridge alumni over Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge. Any more than the category system chooses Category:France people over Category:People of France, or Category:New York City nature over Category:Nature of New York City, or Category:Italy symbols over Category:Symbols of Italy, or Category:Massachusetts architecture over Category:Architecture of Massachusetts, or Category:Catholic Church history over Category:History of the Catholic Church, etc. So if there's prior consensus supporting that format for this specific topic area, I'd appreciate a link. Kindly, Οἶδα (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the reply. And yeah, I know there's a ton of inconsistency just because of how huge Commons is and how the category tree was built out. I think the number of categories affected by this is by itself a good reason to start a centralized discussion about it, as otherwise there's no way we're going to be able to work toward consistency over time. Without that, someone else might come along in the future and decide that they'd prefer "X University campus" instead and move them back, at which point there's a circular pattern. At minimum, using an edit summary like "moving category to align with broader category structure" would be preferable over nothing for deterring future wheel-warring (although still not as good as actually having some documentation/discussion to link to). Sdkb ^talk 17:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe I am justified in aligning the categories with the top-level category structures on Commons instead of retaining deviations from that standard when no specific consensus has been developed to do so. But I completely agree that my being justified is unclear and makes back-and-forth moves inevitable. At the time I was moving these categories I checked the revision history of each. Some were moved in the opposite direction (i.e. Campus of Bowling Green State University to Bowling Green State University campus), with the only edit summary being "simplify category name". That is obviously not sufficient. I would gladly participate in a centralized discussion so we can make the underlying Commons standard more explicit to make applying it consistently easier going forward. In the meantime, I will make sure to use an edit summary for my moves. But I'm not confident in establishing consensus for this one topic. Because this isn't really about a single set of college campus categories but rather a widespread issue across Commons, appearing in large numbers of categories across many different subject areas. We wouldn't move Category:Wives of Brigham Young to Category:Brigham Young wives or Category:Brigham Young's wives, would we? But we should move Category:Spotify logos to Category:Logos of Spotify, right? Many many such cases exist. Whereas I haven't bothered harmonising the "Buildings in"/"Buildings at"/"Buildings of" [University] categories because the "right" one there is less obvious. A broader discussion would be needed about whether the standardised construction '[Topic] of [subject]' should be preferred consistently where applicable, or whether mixed usage should be kept.

Though, I must question whether this hasn't already been discussed before. It almost certainly has been. The problem is that searching the discussion logs for this specific issue proves difficult. Οἶδα (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: Join the discussion and see the above. It is true that this is aligned the broader category structure. So if there exists any greater consensus for these deviations from that broader structure then let's see it. Otherwise let's not pretend that there is and that they exist at these names for any greater reason than merely the users who created them chose to name them as such and they've simply remained, with random harmonising in either direction by various users over time. As I described above, that is not consensus. The category system here is like a wild west that is endlessly large and not exactly attended-to to say the least. If you "strongly disagree" with my recent moves then open a discussion to build consensus to transgress consistency with the standards of the highest levels of categorization. These categories can always be moved in bulk if consensus so decides they should be. Either way it's not a matter of my "preference" here. If the consensus results in the aforementioned I will surely respect it. But I can find no actual consensus for Category:Logos of Harvard University being named Category:Harvard University logos any more than I can consensus for renaming Category:Logos of the Boston Public Library to Category:Boston Public Library logos, Category:Flags of FIFA to Category:FIFA flags, Category:Emblems of College of Cardinals to Category:College of Cardinals emblems, Category:Collections of the British Museum to Category:British Museum collections, Category:Agencies of the European Union to Category:European Union agencies, Category:Coins of the Ming Dynasty to Category:Ming Dynasty coins, Category:Ships of Maersk to Category:Maersk ships, Category:Weapons of World War I to Category:World War I weapons, Category:Players of Manchester United FC to Category:Manchester United FC players, Category:Illustrations of Sherlock Holmes to Category:Sherlock Holmes illustrations, etc etc etc. Οἶδα (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Οἶδα (@Sdkb) We're not changing tens of thousands of category names based on a "discussion" with two participiants on some random user talk page. That's what COM:CFD is for. Because some upper level categories are named a certain way, dosen't mean that this should automatically apply to all subcategories.
Regarding the logo question, your naming of "Logos of <entity>" is unnatural language which no one uses. No one says "the logo of walmart", "logo of youtube", "logo of google", "logo of samsung" etc. It's "Walmart logo", "Youtube logo", "Google logo", "Samsung logo", etc.
Looking at Category:Logos by name and its first four subcats: The (perhaps informal) naming standard for logos of individual entities is "XYZ logos". You starting to massively change that is what creates inconsistency and problems in the first place, when there were absolutely no problems to begin with. ~TheImaCow (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

We're not changing tens of thousands of category names based on a "discussion" with two participiants on some random user talk page.

I never once implied a correlation between those two things. So I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I have been moving categories ages before this one random discussion.

your naming of "Logos of <entity>" is unnatural language which no one uses

According to whom? You've provided zero sources for that claim. Category:National flag of the United States is also "unnatural". But we are not renaming that category to Category:American flag now are we? We do not name each and every Commons category by what one user deems to be more "natural". This is not an issue of grammar.

Regarding the logo question, your naming of "Logos of <entity>" is unnatural language which no one uses. No one says "the logo of walmart", "logo of youtube", "logo of google", "logo of samsung" etc. It's "Walmart logo", "Youtube logo", "Google logo", "Samsung logo", etc.

That categories you are referring to are not for one main company logo. I do agree that images of the Google logo should be in a category named as such. But the category is not named Category:Google logo, it is named Category:Google logos, and it contains all logos related to the company. Not merely its main logo known as the "Google logo".

The (perhaps informal)

Ding ding ding. Let's stop pretending the category system isn't wildly inconsistent. You still have provided zero evidence supporting retaining deviations from the Commons standard when no specific consensus has been developed to do so. Οἶδα (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)