The result of the discussion was remove all transclusions then delete. Erik9 ( talk) 22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This template adds little or nothing to the articles in which it is included. The connection between these rulers is extremely tenuous at best, the template simply duplicates a not especially good list article ( List of people known as The Great), and overall the template is misleading in that it implies that some genuine connection exists. I advocate deletion, but would also be interested in any arguments that can be made for the continued use of this template. ClovisPt ( talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't really figure out what this template is specifically for beside put things in a category. It is hardly used. And {{ dead link}} is likely a better option BirgitteSB 18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary template. Give that there are four articles for the series, all of which are interlink to each other, making the nav template completely redundant. This appears to be creating a nav template for the sake of having a nav template. Farix ( Talk) 13:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really useful; it essentially creates a new section with the title and content that has been passed in the various parameters. This is redundant to the 'New section' link at the top of discussion pages, and typing the title/message through the template doesn't save any time or effort. Richard 0612 11:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unused template whose sole function appears to be the display of a deleted image. Delete. ukexpat ( talk) 03:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unused template; it's not obvious where this would be a better alternative to {{ Yearsinfilm}}. PC78 ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unused, only contains red links (articles were deleted). PC78 ( talk) 02:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was replace and delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Only four transclusions and easily replaceable with {{ succession box}}. PC78 ( talk) 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Contains a table which is redundant to List of post-1960s films in black-and-white. Only transclusion is in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:2000s black and white films, but it's highly unnecessary and the category itself looks a little dubious. PC78 ( talk) 02:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was remove all transclusions then delete. Erik9 ( talk) 22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This template adds little or nothing to the articles in which it is included. The connection between these rulers is extremely tenuous at best, the template simply duplicates a not especially good list article ( List of people known as The Great), and overall the template is misleading in that it implies that some genuine connection exists. I advocate deletion, but would also be interested in any arguments that can be made for the continued use of this template. ClovisPt ( talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't really figure out what this template is specifically for beside put things in a category. It is hardly used. And {{ dead link}} is likely a better option BirgitteSB 18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary template. Give that there are four articles for the series, all of which are interlink to each other, making the nav template completely redundant. This appears to be creating a nav template for the sake of having a nav template. Farix ( Talk) 13:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really useful; it essentially creates a new section with the title and content that has been passed in the various parameters. This is redundant to the 'New section' link at the top of discussion pages, and typing the title/message through the template doesn't save any time or effort. Richard 0612 11:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unused template whose sole function appears to be the display of a deleted image. Delete. ukexpat ( talk) 03:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unused template; it's not obvious where this would be a better alternative to {{ Yearsinfilm}}. PC78 ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unused, only contains red links (articles were deleted). PC78 ( talk) 02:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was replace and delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Only four transclusions and easily replaceable with {{ succession box}}. PC78 ( talk) 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Contains a table which is redundant to List of post-1960s films in black-and-white. Only transclusion is in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:2000s black and white films, but it's highly unnecessary and the category itself looks a little dubious. PC78 ( talk) 02:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)