Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Template messages/Media namespace

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

The result of the debate was keep. The consensus here seems to be to keep it for historical reasons. Steve block talk 23:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Template messages/Media namespace

There is no media namespace _→AzaToth 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a Media: pseudo-namespace. It's quite useful for linking to sound and other media files: Media:StrummerCashRedemptionSong.ogg links to the sound file rather than the sound file description page, but at the same time generates a "what links here" entry for the sound file. --Carnildo 04:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But you can't have any messages in the "media"-namespace, so all of the templates listes, should be listed at Image-namespace, so this category is redundant, it's missguiding to have listed templates for a namespace that you can not have templates on. _→AzaToth 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Carnildo, speedily if nom. withdrawn. Xoloz 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC
• Delete. These are lists of templates that go in the relevant namespaces, not those that link to those namespaces. Because nothing can be in Media namespace, it has to go. Superm401 - Talk 04:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, impossible to place anything in this namespace. Links go right to the file, and if you type Media: followed by the image name, you get a practical "redirect" to the image description page. So, it's redundant with the version for the Image namespace. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no template messages can ever be placed in the "namespace" so keeping the page is useless. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 14:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but probably tag as {{historical}}. We used to have namespaces like this before the new template capabilities were rolled out. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Just looked at page history. This was created back in 2004! So, keep for historical purposes (tag {{historical}}) per Rossami. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, refactor, stuff in the attic if you must until it becomes useful again. John Reid 01:46, 16 March 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.