Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 27



More album track listings

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album) track listing
 * I Am... Sasha Fierce track listing
 * B'Day track listing
 * The Emancipation of Mimi track listing

Per previous discussions on Album tracklisting templates, there are still a few missing to get deleted. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 11:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC) 
 * delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete since redundant to Taylor Swift singles, Beyoncé Knowles songs and Mariah Carey singles. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that only Template:Red (Taylor Swift album) track listing has been properly tagged with the tfd notification. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 03:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Note, this is a relisting of the discussion initiated on 19 April 2013, which closed as delete for .  Since the other four templates were not tagged, the discussion will be left open for another week. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  22:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Football olympic world cup matches and goals keys

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Football olympic world cup matches and goals keys

Used on a handful of female American soccer players, purely to support a table which violates WP:NOTSTATS and consensus at WP:FOOTY regarding these kinds of tables. The tables could/should be removed, and therefore this template serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 11:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not try to have the table deleted? After that the Template has nothing to stand on and (if i'm not mistaken) that would make it good for CSD. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 
 * The table is a WikiTable, not a template. GiantSnowman 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * keep until the tables supported by the key are removed. if the tables are deleted, then delete the key. Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done so. GiantSnowman 19:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abby_Wambach&diff=552788229&oldid=552772968 here]. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I undid Giant's removal, as he stated there is a consensus to remove sections like this, which I disagree on. A couple of other editors has also reverted some of Giant's 17 edits where he removed these tables, and a discussion whether such a consensus exists has been started at WT:FOOTY. When it comes to this particular template, I believe we could use a much simpler table for international goals, and the wikitable used in most of the men's footballer articles is sufficient. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Human trafficking in popular culture
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Human trafficking in popular culture

Navbox with potentially unlimited prospect for growth, likely to get out of hand (even with works already created) if we are to give proper coverage to much of African and Asian cinema. Category is more appropriate and already exists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a valid topic for a navbox. The navbox is not currently unwieldy, and if it ever became so, it could easily be split into multiple navboxes by subtopic. Neelix (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Interesting and helpful. No problem now. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Helpful, educational, encyclopedic, great for navigation for readers and editors alike. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - categories are more appropriate for these sort of open-ended lists that are unlikely to be comprehensive. Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly defined inclusion criteria (human trafficking is an extremely broad subject), linking articles with little in common. IMO, any template about "subject in popular culture" is like non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 04:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for same reasons given by Crisco, Kaldari, and P199. Existing category Category:Works about human trafficking is all that is needed, although even that has no stated inclusion criteria.-- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 14:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories do not serve the same function as navboxes; I do not see how one could replace the other. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I see little problem with the template. Examining the articles for each films I see only two that does not quite fit: Shuttle, which seems to be about kidnapping for the personal sexual abuse by the villain, and Sugar Babies, which is about human trafficking in a different sense. (I can't tell the relevance of the plot element from the summary in Unknown woman) This is hardly a disparate array of topics. Individual items can be discussed on the template talk page. Personally, I do like these navboxes in general, except for special purposes, and I think they are often abused for promotional purposes. If we were to have an AfC on using them, I would say only for chronological successions, and geographic regionalization, and possibly for parts of an organization, but not purposes like this. If given only the choice between abolishing them altogether and keeping them in use as broadly as at present, I'd abolish them, and find other devices. But at present, WP does use them widely, and this use is well within our custom. I point out that any objections about standards for inclusion would affect equally the category, so the reason Atlantima gives is incompatible with that of P199, which the ed. says he relies on. Crisco is concerned the template might possibly be abused in the future, which is true for every element of Wikipedia. P199 thinks X in popular culture excessive cross categorization, but that would apply to something like X in popular culture of the 21st century.
 * This said, I would advocate either clarifying the content by a change in title. Currently Human trafficking in popular culture usually implies sexual exploitation, because that tends to make the more spectacular films, etc. etc. So it might sense to have that as the category. Or does that become excessive cross-categorization?   DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can have a separate move discussion if you would like, but I would recommend keeping the template where it is to be consistent with the main article (Human trafficking in popular culture) and its parent article (Human trafficking). I would, for that reason, wish to retain The Sugar Babies. I have removed Shuttle. Neelix (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Crisco is worried that the scope of this navbox template is so wide that it could quickly balloon out of size as a matter of the regular growth of Wikipedia. Off the top of my head I can think of Sepuluh, a 2009 film about street children who are trafficked for illegal organ harvesting, which does not have an article but would likely fall under the scope of this template. WP:NAVBOX states clearly "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." and "You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles"; I wouldn't link The Sugar Babies or the Russian documentary to Jamila dan Sang Presiden because they are from different cinematic heritages, have a different format, different plots, different cast; the theme itself is so wide that having them all would violate WP:SEEALSO. Not to mention "Can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related", which applies quite clearly here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it does; the articles are not only tangentially related. The subject of a film is not tangential to the film; it is central to the film by definition. There is also no violation of WP:SEEALSO here. The quotation you select from WP:NAVBOX is not a requirement for navboxes; it is one of a list of guidelines that are introduced with a statement that "good templates generally follow some of these guidelines", not that "templates must follow all of these guidelines." It is commonly deemed sufficient that the main article links all the articles together; the Human trafficking in popular culture article can fill this role. If the navbox balloons, as you suggest, we can create articles like List of films featuring human trafficking and List of books about human trafficking. That would increase the mutual references even more. To remove Jamila dan Sang Presiden would be an arbitrary move; there is nothing about human trafficking in popular culture that excludes Indonesian film. Neelix (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete, massive template with little focus. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; it says "These things are related" and by excluding others implies that they're not related. Broad topics should have either "part of a series on..." boxes like Christianity or a firmly-bounded "top topics" navbox like National Register of Historic Places.  No prejudice to recreation if someone can decide how to produce firm boundaries for the top topics in this subject.  Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What things are being excluded that are related? Every Wikipedia article that falls within the scope of human trafficking in popular culture appears on this navbox. Neelix (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but my point is not that you're excluding something intentionally. Imagine that you're only a reader.  You come across this template at the bottom of one of its linked articles, and then you browse around to some of the articles it links; you're thankful it exists and assume that the guy who writes Wikipedia really knows his stuff to find all of these pages.  Then, later, you encounter another page on the topic, and you notice that it doesn't have the template.  Why not?  Hmm, apparently it's not related to the topic somehow.  Wonder why not?  Ah, well, the guy who writes Wikipedia must understand something I don't.  End simulation.  We risk confusing the ordinary reader by creating the appearance (through this template's huge size) that it links every page on the topic; better not to have the template than to have someone who's thankful but confused as a result of what we present.  It's different from other navboxes because it looks comprehensive and its inclusion criteria aren't clear; something like the National Register template quite obviously isn't comprehensive, while something like Los Angeles County, California has obvious inclusion criteria (all localities in Los Angeles County belong on it), so someone who finds a city that's not on the template will understand that the template has a mistake, not that the city somehow isn't in Los Angeles County.  If we were to cut it down somewhat and change its title to "core topics on human trafficking in popular culture", we'd be making it clear that we weren't attempting to include everything.  Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we include everything? I'm quite glad to include all articles that fall within the scope of "Human trafficking in popular culture", which has, as far as I can tell, just as clear of inclusion criteria as "Los Angeles County, California"; all media relating to human trafficking should be included. I've never read anything similar to the reasoning you provide for deleting this navbox. Are you arguing that the navbox shouldn't exist because there is always a remote possibility that we didn't add a link that should have been included? Surely well-established templates such as Template:Scientology in popular culture are analagous to this one. Neelix (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * delete, the category does a better job here. Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox York college
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox York college
 * Infobox Kent College

replaced by infobox residential college. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UploadCampaignLink
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * UploadCampaignLink

This template facilitates the appearance of 'placeholder images', like e.g. File:Missing-monuments-image.svg, File:Small_upload_photo_button.png and others. Already in 2008, per WP:IPH, the appearance of such images has been described as 'intrusive, ugly, amateurish, in the wrong place, cluttering, distracting and disruptive (12), thought the placeholders overemphasized the importance of including pictures in articles (3), thought the solicitation should be on the talk page (4), self-referencing (2), thought them ineffective (3) and objected to their semi-automated, systematic dispersal (2)', in line with an earlier discussion, and I am not aware of any cases where that consensus was overthrown (I am aware of discussions that it was still deemed a valid consensus (see e.g. Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_91 'It doesn't look like anyone wants to "repeal" Wikipedia:Image placeholders...')). It is also noticed on Category:Wikipedia image placeholders (tag added in 2012).

I propose to delete the template and remove transclusions - The other solution (keep the template, but remove the display of placeholder images) makes no sense, as it would simply not display anything. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note, see e.g. Sites_and_monuments_in_Kenya, where this template is transcluded, and which page is showing nearly 200 transclusions of File:Missing-monuments-image.svg. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been using this for since August 2012 and we we had several discussions about it on NRHP and we achieved consensus to use it in this way during September. So on the 1st of October it was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANRHP_row&diff=515442194&oldid=509602847 commented out] so we can use it again this year. I guess nobody bother to comment it out in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3AUploadCampaignLink&namespace=10 other templates]? You might want to do that or just update the template to not be visible again.
 * Please keep the template so we can use it September again. Multichill (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this going to be transcluded from mainspace in September? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Copied from user talk:Multichill:
 * I've posted a question on the deletion discussion. Could you explain me how this template is commonly used?  Just by one project, and just in project-space, or also outside of project space?  If it is used in mainspace, then maybe the template should just be adapted in the times that it is not used so that it is not displaying any placeholder images.  And anyways, even if it is just active for a month a year .. it still makes those pages look, as the RfC describes it, 'intrusive, ugly, amateurish, in the wrong place, cluttering, distracting and disruptive' for a month.  Do you have any measure how effective this campaign was last September?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's used by Wiki Loves Monuments in September only in lists of monuments in mainspace. It was quite effective, we got about 365.000 images in one month. Is that effective enough for you? Multichill (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I should have formulated that differently. Those 365.000 images are indeed from the campaign.  Now, how many of those were purely because of the display of these images?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that's difficult to directly quantify. One way of doing it would be to compare two broadly similar upload drives, running simultaneously, one with placeholders here and one without. For what it's worth, this is certainly well-intentioned and if it does have a significant impact on our upload stats (assuming those uploads are worthy and compliant) then it may be worth re-addressing our consensus here: however, Dirk rightly points out that at present our consensus is not to have placeholders, and this goes against that consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That point was also addressed in the RfC 5 years ago, Chris .. it was also then questioned whether these placeholder images do have any significant effect (though also there it was concluded that that can not be measured in a proper objective way anyway). For those 365.000 images, most people were aware of the campaign, and that is why they were visiting the page where the images could go (and likely followed the link behind the placeholder image to get to the upload).  Most of those people would likely not have visited the page and would not have seen the placeholders if there was no campaign, and without the placeholder image, most could have followed instructions given in the campaign (which now probably also read 'find a page of interest, see if there are missing images, click the image to upload one if you have one', otherwise they would have been 'find a page of interest, see if there are missing images, click the upload button (located there down on the left) if you have one').  The fact that in the example above (Sites_and_monuments_in_Kenya) there are still ~200 unfilled images looks to me that outside of the campaign, the effect of the placeholder images is quite small.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the intention is to only use it in the campaign so it has effect. It's a focused effort to make it really easy to upload images about a limited number of subjects. I'm not sure if you tried the link, but for the NRHP it gives a fully filled out upload form on Commons so you just have to select the images on your hard drive and you're done.
 * My proposal is to disable the template (either by removing references to it or empty it out) and just see in September again if and how we want to use it. Multichill (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand with the same point as earlier: so it just makes the pages this template is transcluded on look "... intrusive, ugly, amateurish, in the wrong place, cluttering, distracting and disruptive ..." for one month a year. It is a long standing consensus that placeholder images are discouraged, and unless that consensus changes I don't think that that should be overriden 'locally' (but I'll allow for other !voters to give their opinion).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We're clearly talking about 2 different things here
 * The ugly, intrusive, ineffective permanent Male/Female (BLP) image placeholders, and
 * The simple, unobtrusive, effective, temporary image upload button

The effectiveness of the button is clear. WLM is an international project that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) loves to boast about as an example of how Wikipedia should work, e.g. in the annual report, in the ED's presentation at Wikimania (if anybody wants exact links I'll get half a dozen). The upload button is a crucial tool that makes WLM work, say ten times better. In WLM 10,000s of mostly new contributors upload 100,000s photos and the button automatically uploads all the required info (e.g. coords, address, official name, categories) into the Commons upload. Newbies simply couldn't hope to upload all that info themselves. WLM organizers couldn't hope to teach the newbies all the intricacies of the upload process, and they are very busy doing other things - placement of pix in the right spots, advising newbies on Commons rules (e.g. photos of copyrighted sculptures that just happen to be next to the listed monument), publicity, judging photos for the contest.

In the US, WLM coordinators (including me) were mostly part of WP:NRHP. IMHO WP:NRHP is one of the most successful projects on WP, with a couple of dozen editors working every month for the last 5 years toward the goal of photographing all 80,000 NRHP-listed sites. Just before WLM a total of about 40% of the sites had been photographed, with over 8,000 (10%) of previously unphotographed sites taken during WLM (out of 20,000+ US WLM photos). Probably more important was the fact that we got many new photographers who have stayed with the project, and that we found photographers spread out throughout the country. It doesn't help much to have a great photographer in Indiana, when the "missing" sites are in Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota - but we got many photos from these neglected areas.

It's not strictly comparable, but WP:NRHP did its own photo contest the year before, without the technology and publicity advantages provided by joining in WLM (We like to do things our own way). We only got 500 "new" sites photographed.

BTW, there was an extensive discussion at WP:NRHP before WLM about the upload button, what it should look like, etc. There were a few dissenters but there was a pretty strong consensus that we should try it for one year. After WLM, and seeing the button's effectiveness, I believe that our normally quite diverse membership would be unanimous in strongly supporting the use of the upload button.

I'm sorry if I've gone on too long, but I still haven't said half of the things in support of using the button. It would be a tragedy to hobble WLM by removing this effective temporary tool. It just is nothing like the male/female BLP image placeholder, and doesn't work the same way at all.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The use of the placeholder image during WLM was spectacular! I agree 1000% with Smallbones and must thank Multichill for xhes incredible support for the WLM campaign, including providing the splendid functionality of the button for newbie photo uploaders.


 * The topic was discussed at NRHP wikiproject here and elsewhere and also at Village pump proposal closed in favor of Keeping the image and supporting the WLM drive. Which was spectacular! -- do  ncr  am  03:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Smallbones, regarding '... The simple, unobtrusive, effective, temporary image upload button ..' (my bolding):
 * Something can not be 'in the wrong place, cluttering, distracting and disruptive' and 'unobtrusive' in the same time, those things are completely opposed to each other.
 * The efficiency of the placeholder image, and the efficiency of the campaign are two totally different things. I totally agree with the efficiency of the campaign, and I applaud that, but you can not, in any way, proof that there is a direct correlation between the use of the image and the efficiency of the campaign or the number of uploads.  Without the image, the campaign may very well have had a very similar efficiency.  In fact, seen this page, those images are still there, 6 months after the end of the campaign, it is more likely that the campaign itself has more effect on the efficiency than the placeholder images - or did the placeholder images simply lose their efficiency at the moment the campaign stops?
 * And it is, obviously, not temporary (200 transclusions on one page 6 months after the campaign).
 * I fully support the effort, and, when properly executed, I could even support a reasonable use of the image, but when it is transcluded more than 200 times, even just for a month, then that is completely overkill, and, I am sorry, I still think that it makes such a page cluttered and utterly unprofessional, or better, plainly ugly. Having the link transcluded into proper templates on the talkpage in a highly visible way would be a solution that would make it also easy to upload the images, without having to make thousands of pages look utterly unproffesional, ugly, etc. for a month.
 * Doncram, Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_91 says in its closing message: 'It doesn't look like anyone wants to "repeal" Image placeholders. WT:NRHP wants use some sort of "upload an image" button solely on NHRP lists solely during the WLM event. ...' - that was obviously not 'solely during the WLM event', and that discussion kept up WP:IPH, WT:NRHP just decided to overrule the global consensus with their own decision, it did not favor, specifically, keeping the image (no-one repealed WP:IPH).
 * (general) - the number of pages this template is transcluded on is not too large, and a simple change to the template would solve a lot of problems (remove the placeholder image now, replace it with a hidden categorisation e.g. - something that should have been done at the end of last September). Keeping it up during a campaign is easier to defend than just leaving it there ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been mentioned on Wikipedia_talk:NRHP


 * Regarding "Smallbones, regarding '... The simple, unobtrusive, effective, temporary image upload button ..' (my bolding):

Something can not be 'in the wrong place, cluttering, distracting and disruptive' and 'unobtrusive' in the same time" I think they are just 2 completely different things. I'll get pix - different as day and night - used in completely different ways, generalizing a rule about the one to the other is just wrong, if you call the first a placeholder, then please call the other an upload button.
 * We can't come up with a perfect statistical proof (if such a thing ever existed) that the upload button is crucial to the campaign's success, but there is some evidence given above, and there is logic. The upload button is a very important integrated part of the campaign which eliminates a bottleneck (most of the problems in uploading to Commons).  Eliminating it would be almost like eliminating the most important 12 lines in a computer program - there wouldn't be any reason to expect it to work - certainly not at the same efficiency.
 * We shouldn't compare WP:NRHP and the Kenya project. I'd guess there are only 12 Wikipedians in Kenya actively involved in all their projects.  They are heros getting as far as they did, and leaving thing in as clean a state as they did.  I'll certainly volunteer to help clean up there.
 * I'm not interested in overturning any rules about placeholders. If you want to make this into an RfC about allowing the upload button to procede on a one month per year basis, I'd be happy to go ahead with that RfC.
 * I'm not completely against putting the upload button on the talk pages rather than the article/list page. I do something like that with particular lists of "needed photos" all the time (without a button).  I'm not sure either of us realize how much work that would take, but it would be a huge amount.  Likely we'd need some programming magic from a master like Multichill to even start on a mass basis.
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary and comment The proposal being discussed here is whether to delete the template and/or associated images that support really great campaigns to collect photos in 2012 and going forward. The motivation for the proposal to delete them seems largely about 2008 brouhaha about person-image placeholders in individual articles (as opposed to list-articles), which are different in many ways. The images were used in more than 2,500 NRHP list-articles during August-September 2012, and then removed from those list-articles. They were used at the same time in a number of scattered other list articles (California monuments; Kenya monuments; various Indian province monument lists) where they were not subsequently removed; Multichill's first response above fully addressed the whole question:  the usage could be dropped from those too by edits at the relevant templates.

I don't happen to see leaving the upload buttons in the Kenya list and in other lists as a problem...it is not perceived to be a problem by any editor/would-be owner of the Kenya list or the other ones. If you want to open a discussion at the Talk page of the Kenya monuments list go ahead, but I don't see any harm of the upload button being available there. Or if you want to comment out the image in related templates (per Multichill's comment) until a new big world-wide campaign is going on, you can do so.

Bottom-line: The images are helpful, were central to the success of the 2012 WLM program, and will be central to the 2013 upcoming program. Deleting them would simply be crazy. Close this discussion with decision Keep the template and images. -- do ncr  am  18:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator is correct: this template facilitates the display of placeholder images that have been prohibited for several years now.  If I weren't involved, I would tag this template for T2 speedy deletion, which by its own wording is not restricted to things violating policy-tagged pages.  Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wiki Loves Monuments is an incredibly valuable program that has vastly improved the photographic coverage of significant sites, among other things. Unlike BLP image placeholders, which were confusing (they didn't link to an upload page), intrusive, and often led to submissions of copyvios and other such things, these placeholders are subtle, clear and highly effective in improving our articles on location within the scope of WLM. To delete them would be to seriously hinder the improvement of this encyclopedia. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HK-MTR route title
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * HK-MTR route title

Sole transclusion at Template:infobox MTR line, can be substituted there without much additional trouble to article editor. &mdash; <span style="font-family:Segoe UI,Lucida Sans,Lucida Grande,sans-serif">Peter why  04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * keep, and delete Infobox MTR line instead. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2014 films
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2014 films

Template for future in films, should be deleted to prevent massive creating of crystal ball articles such as Russian. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 04:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:CRYSTAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.