Jump to content

Template talk:Keep local

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening heading[edit]

Why do we allow this? It strikes me as pretty stupid. Plrk (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I would have hoped that anyone who wanted to help Wikipedia by contributing images would be prepared to let the community decide the best way to organise their freely licensed media files. This is likely to mean moving them to Commons where such content is better managed. Category:KeepLocal suggest there are around 420 files with this. Adambro (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Rather than being "better managed" on Commons, there is ample evidence to show that is worse. Until this changes, the ability for an editor (or the editing community) to monitor and maintain media files on Wikipedia must be retained as an option for those who wish to do so. Senator2029 • talk 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This template has now been proposed for deletion twice, discussion linked above, and both times the consensus was keep. The issue was also debated here concluding that images bearing a keep local template should be exempt from speedy deletion on the grounds of a Commons duplicate. SpinningSpark 19:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Would it make sense to have a field for 'justification' in this template? It is all very well for an uploader to slap a KeepLocal on an image, but as with fair-use justifications, it seems like a useful thing to actually know why an image ought to be kept locally rather than moved to Commons. There may be good reasons for it (like that it is in use by widely used templates which would break if Commons were to rename the files, or that there's a legal reason) but if one is putting a KeepLocal template on a file, it would be useful for other people who work in the File namespace as well as those on Commons to know why the image is being kept locally. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to have a justification field while there is no agreed list of acceptable justifications written into the guidelines. At the moment it seems to have been accepted that local copies can be kept for the purpose of monitoring, which is why I do it. In any case, a template talk page is not the right place to have a policy debate. SpinningSpark 15:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Some people seem to slap KeepLocal on something because they just don't want to have to deal with Commons. And until there is a list of good reasons for putting KeepLocal on a file, it seems reasonable to ask people placing it on there to provide a reason so that others who frequently move files to Commons can come to a judgment of whether that reason is valid or not. Until we have such a list of acceptable KeepLocal reasons, perhaps a simple common sense test should apply. If I put a banner on articles I created called "DontDelete", the lack of a codified set of acceptable reasons to delete or keep something is not a reason to not ask for some reason.
I did look for a place to start a discussion about policy, but there doesn't seem to be an active place for discussion of policy in the File namespace. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense if the person wanting to delete an image had to provide a reason against hosting it on Wikipedia.
As things stand, the consensus is that Wikipedians shouldn't be forced to get involved with the Commons if they want to monitor images they've uploaded. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that when image on commons is fixed (description added, better version uploaded), the one here doesn't change. This directly hurts the project. Compare File:Bij Bolszewika.jpg and commons:File:Bij Bolszewika.jpg, for example. When one of our readers clicks on the image, he will get the less friendly, tagged Wikipedia page, and he is unlikely to proceed to the better developed Commons page. I am all for being friendly to editors, but when it has detrimental effects on this project, it is a problem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say it again: the talk page of a template is an unsuitable place to have a policy discussion (although if you do start yet another policy discussion on this a link here would be appreciated). This page is meant for discussing improvements to the template, not changes to the policies which lead to it. The problem you describe can work the other way round; a change on Commons can screw up an En:Wikipedia article, but in that case it is far worse since the change on Commons does not trigger the watchlist of any of the article editors. See this discussion for instance. SpinningSpark 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to files send to Ffd or Puf[edit]

Sometimes files with a {{Keep local}} is send to Ffd and most times they are kept. Examples:

If you know of some interessting FfD's you could add a link here. --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we just had another one, but it took me throwing a conniption fit to get them to actually respect the tagging. I'm going to try to figure out some wording to put on this tag to see if we can't head off these bad-faith noms. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 23:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN violation?[edit]

The current text says "should not be nominated for deletion as a Commons duplicate without the permission of the tagging editor." What makes the "tagging editor" so special? Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the deleting editor so special that he should be allowed to spam deletion requests because he likes Commons better, hoping that by inattention or attrition he gets his way? And if opposed, try again in a few months? It's a balance, the current consensus is that "delete because it's on Commons" is insufficient reason to delete if opposed, and this template serves to indicate that there is opposition. Anomie 01:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes some sense. I suppose this consensus comes from the fact that the temple (presumably with this wording) was kept at a few TfDs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the tagging editor so special is that they have some reason to want a copy kept local, and have gone out of their way to tag it as such. That's it. It doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything else with the file. You can copy it to commons, you can put the image on a hundred-foot-tall billboard in Times Square. But someone asked that we not delete the file from en.wiki, so don't. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OWN mainly uses the word "article", although sometimes other terms such as "content" or "material" are used instead. I'm not sure to what extent WP:OWN is meant to extend to other namespaces. At the end, there is a section about user pages. First it says that users largely are allowed to maintain pages in their user space as they see fit (implicitly meaning that a user owns the pages in his own user space), but after that, the WP:OWN page contradicts itself by telling that users do not own the pages in the user namespace. WP:CSD#U1 also implies some kind of ownership for the user namespace as a user can choose to delete his own user page at will. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, nothing in this template either explicitly or implicitly prevents other users from editing, using, or redistributing the content - which is exactly the criteria of behaviour that constitutes OWN. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus against error handling?[edit]

Hello, Spinningspark

In you revert you are implying that there is extensive consensus against error handling both here in the talk page and in the TFDs. Please show me. I don't see such thing on my own.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus against error handling. There is consensus, from numerous discussions, that a reason is not required to be given for using this template. It is therefore incorrect to treat failure to give a reason as an error. SpinningSpark 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Again, I don't exactly see this more questionable consensus. And how can people not have a reason for requesting a local copy to be kept? —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There has been agreement in deletion discussions that if there is no valid reason giving for keeping a local copy, it's a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kelly hi! 16:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fair point, even though I was not going as far. The first TfD was closed with "It's not a requirement, it's a good-faith request". All I did was to make sure the good-faith request is not forgotten. People feel less compelled to keep the file local when a reason (even a weak one) is given.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, WP:NOTWEBHOST only proscribes files that are not used anywhere on Wikipedia. I would like to see links to any debates that have used this policy as grounds to delete a file that is actually in use. SpinningSpark 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: - a couple of examples would be Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 17#Several files uploaded by User:Bedford and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 24#Several more files uploaded by User:Bedford. Probably a lot of other examples of individual files, I recall quite a few deleted because the original uploader was long-absent and nobody could see a reason to keep local duplicates. Kelly hi! 08:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a question that you need to show that consensus requires a reason has to be given. Wikipedia: Criteria for speedy deletion excludes criterion F8 when a keep local template exists, but does not require a reason to be given. The issue has been discussed numerous times on the CSD talk page (most recent two [1][2], to say nothing of the three deletion debates on this page) but no consensus has ever been achieved to require a reason. There is no sense at all in demanding a reason until policy specifies what are acceptable reasons in the first place. SpinningSpark 17:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of those discussions discuss what parameters the keep local template should have or require. They only note that a file which is tagged with {{keep local}} do not qualify for deletion under WP:F8, but do not discuss what information the template should present. Therefore, the discussions you linked to do not have anything to do with the matter being discussed here. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They very much do discuss what might be reasons for keep local, but no consensus has been established on what reasons are, or are not, valid, and no decision was made to put any of that in the policy. SpinningSpark 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those discussions discuss whether we should keep local copies of files but not how we document this and are thus of no relevance here. Whether a reason parameter is used or not has no effect on whether the disclosed or undisclosed reason for keeping a local copy of a file is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Keep local high-risk}} uses this template without using the reason parameter. Instead, an {{imbox}} is used to present a reason above the template. If a warning is added when the reason parameter is missing, then {{keep local high-risk}} should be adjusted so that no warning is presented whenever the template is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the code that was attempted to add to the template cause thousands of files already using it to be marked with an error condition? If allowed to stand, this will end up with all those files being deleted for the "error" of not providing a reason. Seems like yet another back door attempt to put an end to the practice of local copies by those that oppose it. SpinningSpark 23:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again. That was actually one of the purpose.
    Even now, these files are not protected against deletion. In the past, I have removed the {{Keep local}} and inserted the speedy deletion tag. In one instance I encountered opposition, took the file to the FFD. The opposing person did come there to say there was a {{Keep local}} on the file. But the file got deleted anyway. Right now, there are 4,377 file with this tag on them and I don't think all of them need to be kept locally.
    Wikipedians are humans; they understand each other. A reason provided by the inserting person prevents all these. In fact, if this template had my error handling routine, it would have never gone to TFD three times. But purely bureaucratic tags and pseudo-consensus stops no one. At the very least, you get into these endless discussions.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the past, I have removed the {{Keep local}} and inserted the speedy deletion tag". Please stop doing that. Whether or not you personally believe these should be kept locally, other users have made a good-faith request to do so, and it does you no harm to comply. And providing a reason for that request doesn't stop people from disregarding it, even if it should. You've got no evidence to suggest otherwise, or to say that an "error handling routine" would prevent a TfD request. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: And I did a good-faith assessment of the status quo and decided that those files were better off on Commons. (Of course, our dear friend Carrite below seems to believe that I did it because I am afflicted with sadism or something.) Of all the people on Wikipedia, I know best what good faith is. Regardless, persuading people to give reason leads to less problems. Reason always trumps bureaucracy in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Codename Lisa: But {{keep local}} doesn't prevent the file from being copied to Commons for use on other projects - it simply requests that the file not be deleted here if/when that happens. Can you explain why you would delete a file that someone has asked not be deleted, when nothing prevents you from adding the file to Commons regardless? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In one case, I asked the uploader, FleetCommand. He was okay with it. In another case, the file was not used on English Wikipedia at all but was put to full protection on Commons because of extensive use. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the uploader agreed, great; if not, it's still not clear why you would proceed to delete the file anyways. A file being protected on Commons because of use outside of English Wikipedia has nothing to do with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it has. It is the WP:NOTWEBHOST policy. Unused files get deleted. And I am not very comfortable with you putting me as the grammatical subject of the verb "delete". I am not admin and I cannot delete anything. Another admin does. And please don't even think of accusing me of having used deception because this whole affair based on good faith of the actors. I don't deceive. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't accused you of deception, I'm simply trying to understand your actions/proposal. For "delete" above, read "nominate for deletion" and the point applies - a lack of |reason= in a {{keep local}}-tagged file is not a reason to remove the tag or seek deletion of the file. There may well be other reasons to delete such a file, but those reasons would exist with or without |reason=, so I don't see how they are applicable to this particular proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good! Then we can finally put this irrelevant discussion aside. All I am purposing is a way to encourage editors to provide an additional reason. Because a reason helps a lot. Believe me, if I had removed {{Keep local}} in some extreme non-controversial cases, there are definitely editors who have done so in total bad faith. A reason reduces all the removal totals. Can't I at least interest you in a more vigorously-recommending documentation?
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because I don't believe requiring a reason will in any way inhibit such "total bad faith" editors, nor do I see it solving any other current problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you admit that adding this code to the template was an attempt to get files deleted without having to go to the bother of getting a change of policy first? Please provide a link to the FFD of the file with a keep local template you had deleted. I would like to examine the rationale used in that discussion for myself. Pinging possible users who may have had files deleted in this way—@Magog the Ogre, Fetchcomms, Slim Virgin, Giano, and RexxS: @Vanisaac, Carrite, Bishonen, Kmw2700, and Colonel Warden: SpinningSpark 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying the exact opposite: To display a big red message, so that the problem is noted and resolved, in the form of a reason supplied. How did you manage to get the complete reverse out of my message? —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it won't be noted and resolved, and it was a non-problem prior to making it one with this template change. A change to the template will not add the files to anyone's watchlist so no one will will even realise this has happened. It still remains clear that it is your intention to delete keep local files that do not contain a reason for keeping. That is a big wodge of unnecessary work for the editors concerned even if they did know about it. I would find this proposal a bit more palatable if a bot was to first add a default reason to the existing files to grandfather them in. SpinningSpark 19:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. First you were saying consensus and now you are saying you have no faith in humanity. You seem to have assumed that someone would delete any file that has a red message on it. That's you pet peeve. —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spinningspark, what are you talking about? We have policies, such as WP:C and WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTHOST, which stipulate which files we accept on Wikipedia. If the tagging user provides a reason for keeping a local copy, then it is easier for others to tell if the file is in compliance with policy or not. If someone nominates the file for deletion, then it is only possible to take known reasons into account, and if the tagging user's reason is unknown, then that reason can't be taken into account. It is possible that the tagging user reveals his reason in a deletion discussion, but if the user is away, then the user's reason may remain unknown when it is time to close the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be nominating files for deletion in the first place unless they are already in breach of one of those policies. In particular, a file that is actually in use somewhere is not in breach of NOTWEBHOST. SpinningSpark 14:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: - I linked a couple of discussions for you above, but one of the reasons the local files were deleted was that the Commons versions had superior description pages to the local versions. It does cause extra work to ask volunteers to maintain and improve file description pages on more than one wiki. Kelly hi! 19:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most likely person to do any improvements is the original uploader and if they requested the file be kept on Wikipedia, that is were they are likely to do the changes. Changes at Commons may or may not be helpful/correct for Wikipedia, I believe I have already given some examples of where Commons changes are wrong for en wp. There are arguments for and against uploading files at either location. In any case, the arguments for and against Commons are irrelevant to this discussion; policy does not proscribe uploading here, or asking for files to be retained here. Until it does, marking such files with error messages is entirely wrong. The main argument in the FFDs you linked was that the requesting editor was no longer active on Wikipedia. So that does not set a general precedent, even ignoring the fact that it was set in a backwater location populated with deletionist intolerant bureaucrats. SpinningSpark 20:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been victimized by politically-motivated retaliatory deletions by the Lord of the Flies shipwreck that is Commons. I won't upload there, any file taken there with my name on it is at risk, and any file taken there without my name on it is a violation of my contributors' rights. People need to stop fucking with Keep Local tags if they are fucking with Keep Local tags, they aren't used without reason and storage space is cheap. WMF has tens of millions of dollars in the bank, they can afford to hold duplicate files, they won't melt. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa — This means you... Carrite (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using reverse psychology to make me transfer your uploads first? That'd be fun though. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am equally sick of the dubious practice of copying a file from the English Wikipedia to Commons without attribution to the original contributor, in violation of the CC-BY-SA licence. Unless a {{keep local}} template is applied here, this then allows the deletionistas to delete the file here. Later on, the file may be deleted from Commons without the original uploader ever being notified. That in itself is a good enough default reason for anybody to add a {{keep local}} template to a file they uploaded. Removing those templates is disruptive editing and needs to be sanctioned. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: That has nothing to do with this discussion. All I did was to implement a reason-checking function. What admins do to a file when they see the {{Keep local}} tag is pretty much admin business. And I don't think they delete the file. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: Sadly you are either naive or disingenuous. Implementing a function that highlights the lack of an explicit reason parameter as if it were an error both enables and encourages the busybodies who spend their wiki-lives looking for any reason to delete files. It is thoroughly irresponsible to use your technical gifts in the service of such low-lifes. --RexxS (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just for the record, I think it's a good idea to add an error category for files lacking a reason, just for administrative purposes and to make it easier for interested parties to find files that should have a reason added. Kelly hi! 08:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is entirely a matter for the uploader, who is giving images to Wikipedia, as to where they are best kept and retained. Keep local ensures a file is just that. I frequently upload images which are works in progress, not intended for huge public consumption, but for the planing and development of an an article. Once lost in the Commons system that are exactly that - lost to quick change and rational arguement; an erroneous/unfinished diagram is allowed to misinform for all eternity. So therefore it us presumptuous of those such as Codename Lisa to have the audacity to presume they know better than the original uploader. Giano (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giano: I said I contacted the uploader. It appears everyone coming from this angle has ample battlefield mentality and comes here to pick a fight. Maybe it is not a good idea to construe what they say as consensus to contribute. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelly: No, it is not at all appropriate to add an error category to files lacking a reason. It merely gives an excuse for dim-witted admins to assume that there is something wrong and delete them. Much as I guess you'd like that, it's not going to happen, because a lack of an optional reason is not an error. If there were a proposal to add a tracking category just to make it easier to categorise them, I'd have much less of an objection. But as it stands this is a naked attempt to delete files that the uploader wishes to keep on En-wp, and everybody reading this discussion can see your motives clearly. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting or keeping files with a keep local[edit]

8 years ago I made a post above Links to files send to Ffd or Puf and I wrote that the files often ended as keep. The links I gave actually ended as delete. I can't remember why I wrote keep.

I have made some new nominations in 2020. For example:

The result of those was delete.

So it seems that the general opinion is:

  • If the file is a copyvio then it should be deleted even if it has a keep local.
  • If the file can be kept on en.wiki but not on Commons (for example {{Free in US media}}) then the local copy should be kept.

If the file have been moved to Commons:

  • If uploader provide a good reason it is more likely to keep the local copy.
  • If the uploader has many edits it is more likely to keep the local copy.
  • If the uploader have not been active of Wikipedia for a few years then it is possible to delete files even if it has a keep local.

This is just meant as information. --MGA73 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 18 August 2021[edit]




Rationale: Right now, if the Commons file name is different you have to enter it as {1} and File: must be appended to the name, or else the link doesn't work. To prevent human error this change makes the use of File: before the name redundant, but if it is there the link still works. Jonteemil (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a sandbox and test case for this. Template:Keep_local/sandbox Template:Keep_local/testcases. The above code had unmatched {,}'s. This is fixed in the sandbox.
For pages in the File: namespace this change does not seem to break anything. However, if the namespace of the page is something other than File: (e.g. this template) it produces an incorrect link. There is one example in the User: namespace User:Sacohen11/Parametric Insurance, one in the User Talk: namespace User talk:Anupmehra/Archive6, one in the Wikipedia namespace Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/August, one in Category: Category:UCLA-Los Angeles Times photographs. None of these have a working copy on commons, but the use on the category seems meaningful.
I'm not convinced about the need for this change. --Salix alba (talk): 20:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 12 May 2022[edit]

The comma after "CSD F8" should be removed. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:NoCommons has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 11 § Template:NoCommons until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to policy surrounding this template[edit]

Hello, I'm proposing a change to this template that would reduce the number of "orphaned" images (images with no transclusions) and hence bring the backlog down at Category:Wikipedia orphaned files.

Many files (such as this one) are tagged with keep local. They are either used on an article and then removed/replaced with a superior image or just never used on an article. Either way, they are left on enwiki with no transclusions whilst filling up backlogs and generally serving zero purpose.

My point is that it is redundant, unnecessary, and a waste of resources to have uncategorised local copies of an image if it is orphaned and not actually being used anywhere on enwiki. Hence I propose the following solution:

"Keep local" should only be used as long as the image is being actively used anywhere on the English Wikipedia. If an image does not meet this criteria, it can be speedily deleted under F9 F8.

I would also like to make the (obvioius) distinction to avoid any confusion that "keep local" is not the same as "do not move to Commons". The former still allows a move to Commons, it's just it requires a local copy to be kept. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 20:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. What stops someone with too much of an "OMG I have to clean up the backlog" mindset from temporarily orphaning an image so they can delete it, then restoring the use? If you really want to clear out your backlog, perhaps we should have a bot transclude all {{keep local}} images on some page. Also, I think you must have meant something other than WP:CSD#F9, as that is "Unambiguous copyright infringement". Anomie 22:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, maybe even better, have whichever bot is tagging images with {{orphan image}} not do so (or add a "keep local" parameter to change/suppress the category) when it's tagged {{keep local}} if that's a problem for your backlog. Anomie 22:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: You're contradicting yourself. The backlog is about orphaned files - how can a file in Category:Wikipedia orphaned files have a transclusion that someone could remove? As for your assumption that someone would intentionally remove a use just to delete the image, the same could be done in bad faith with any non-free file (remove the transclusion(s) and wait for the bot to tag it) - arguably that would be worse since a bot manages that category. It's just that the community would eventually notice and reverse the actions of the editor. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 14:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contradicting myself, and you seem to have realized exactly what I meant. I'm not so confident the community would catch it when the end result is that the Commons version of the image remains in use. Anomie 18:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, largely for the same reasons stated by Anomie. —Locke Coletc 18:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]