Can we create one for Trekpulse stuff too, like:

Image courtesy of

Would make life much easier just to type something like: {{imagetrekpulse}}. Zsingaya | Talk 09:24, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Trekpulse (now Trekcore) possesses no ownership of trek images. --Alan 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects? Edit

Okay, I could have sworn I read somewhere that redirects and such don't have message templates place if they've been nominated for deletion or the like, because it hinders the use of the redirect. Now, I've been looking high and low for where I read it. Could somebody tell me where I could find it (or at least if I'm right), or was I just hallucinating? --From Andoria with Love 05:21, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Forum:New deletion templateEdit

In an effort to ease new users into our views on canon, i suggest that if anyone creates an obviously deletable non-canon article (like "Reginald Barclay (mirror)" or "USS Stargazer (NCC-2893-A)"), that we add this template ({{deletionapocrypha}}) to give them the heads up that article titles are canon-only:

Removing apocryphal pages

Due to non-canon content, this page has been listed as a candidate for deletion. In the normal day-to-day operations of Memory Alpha, some pages are deleted for various reasons. This deletion suggestion and reasoning can be discussed on:

A discussion page for this suggestion does not exist.
Click the following link to create one:
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Memory Alpha talk:Message templates

  • This article will be deleted in two days from the timestamp below if no canon source is found.
  • Apocryphal information may be merged, without a waiting period, to an appropriate source article in one Memory Alpha's non-canon topics (see below)
Memory Alpha's non-canon topics
novels - comics - reference works - games - collectibles

This comment was added by: -- Captain M.K.B. 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support GNDN 04:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that if this is used, it will need to be brought into line with the other deletion templates and styles that are now used on MA, that were not used at the time that this suggestion originally arose. -- Sulfur 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good. Make the necessary alterations and then put it into use. -StalwartUK 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It looks good. I like it because it provides a bit more information than just the regular delete templat. ----Willie 15:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The template has now been updated to the new style, and has had a number of format issues fixed on it too. -- Sulfur 16:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Deletion isn't even the proper way to deal with non-canon materials. You are supposed to merge them into the parent article for whatever licensed product they come from. Therefore, the proper action is use of the merge with template, not a deletion template. Any fanon materials can use the regular deletion template. Hell, that is what we use it for most of time anyways. You just write up a rationale for deletion like you would do anyways. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards Oppose. I'm not convinced that this is neccesary, as the rationale for a proposed deletion can be explained on that proposal's talk page. As for the template itself, I would wonder if two days is sufficient time. 31dot 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd agree, Oppose. I just don't see the need for it. Just another thing to remember. -- Sulfur 17:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletepage template question Edit

Is the deletepage template supposed to say "This discussion page does not exist" even when it does? The link does immediately go to the correct edit screen, but not the page itself first. That it what is happening to me. Just wondering if it is supposed to be like that.--31dot 19:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know wether it is a glitch, or what, but if you edit the marked page and then save it without making any changes, that message will be removed. Both of the new pages for deletion have been fixed. ---- Willie LLAP 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll remember that. Thanks for the tip.--31dot 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Templates Edit

Do we still need these listed here? Or can we just mark them as no longer in use? — Morder (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the bot still use them by SUBST? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they're new messages entirely. — Morder (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand but the message left by was because that was a user who registered before the wikiabot but was never welcomed by anyone. ThomasHL just did it recently. Any new users would be automatically welcomed. — Morder (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That user registered yesterday, according to the creation log. Has something changed in the last 24 hours that I have either missed or has not been announced? Otherwise, I'm failing to see the change away from the template. In addition, another example, User talk:Grammaticist, seems to use the same code as our welcome template, therefore I am left to assume that the welcome bot in fact uses our template, only via SUBST (do you know what I mean when I say that?), and so the template should be kept on this page so that it can be tracked should we ever decide to make changes to it. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, we don't need to remove it, however, if you check the actual MediaWiki messages you'll see they're not the same - they're formatted differently and don't even contain the same text. Yes, sometimes, once in a while the Bot fails - it's a known issue when the queue is large, and yes, I know what a SUBST is...sheesh — Morder (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)