Many Wikipedia pages display maintenance templates that identify problems. You may have arrived at this help page after clicking a link on a maintenance template saying "Learn how and when to remove this message".
Maintenance templates are added and removed by volunteers. This help page explains the process for examining and removing such templates.
Overview
It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place. Maintenance templates are not to be used to express your personal opinion.
Wikipedia works because of the efforts of volunteers just like you, making to help build this encyclopedia. Fixing problems and then removing maintenance templates when you are done is important in that effort.
Addressing the flagged problem
Many common templates address problems with article citations and references, or their lack this is because reliable sourcing is the lifeblood of Wikipedia articles and at the core of all of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, such as , , , and . But a host of other issues may be flagged, including tone and style of writing, structure, and formatting, lack of links to or from other articles, compliance with Wikipedia's and the lack of a .
Please make sure the issue has been resolved before removing the template. That does require some effort on your part—to understand both the problem and how to solve it.
An example
It is important to understand that what you see when reading an article, and what you see when editing it, are different unless you're in Visual editing mode. Thus, the above code, only seen when doing source editing, results in the display of the 'called' template below:
- "cite", which links to the content guideline Citing sources;
- "sources", which links to the policy Verifiability; and
- "adding citations to reliable sources", which links to a help page providing a how-to guide to the basics of citing references.
When to remove
- When the issue has been adequately addressed;
- Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);
- If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error. Consider first discussing the matter with the original placer of the template (unless this user is no longer active on Wikipedia). In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page;
- When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);
- When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue, and you are reasonably implementing those changes. (It is good practice to note the location of the consensus in the edit summary accompanying your removal, ideally with a link to the location);
- When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant, such as a template appearing in an article that no longer documents a current event;
- If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example, neutrality-related templates such as (associated with the ) or (associated with the ) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed. A tag may be removed and may not be re-added if an article has passed an Articles for deletion review.
- You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). Please note there is currently no consensus for general age-related removal of maintenance templatesthat is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old is not considered a sufficient argument. An exception is that removing POV-related templates whose discussions have gone dormant is encouraged, as addressed in the bullet point immediately above.
- Lastly, there are times when a person attempting to address a maintenance template that flags some fundamental matter may find that the issue cannot actually be addressed. For example, if an article is flagged as lacking citations to reliable, sources, written by third-parties to the topic, and a user seeing the maintenance templates discovers that such sources appear not to exist, that usually means the article should be deleted. In such cases, it is not so much that the template does not belong and should be removed, but rather that flagging the page for maintenance will never address the more critical issue that the page itself does not belong on Wikipedia at all.
When not to remove
- You do not understand the issues raised by the template;
- The issue has not yet been resolved;
- There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
- The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;
- You have been paid to edit the article or have some other exceptions.
Removal
- Click on either "edit" or "edit source" at the top of the page. Or if the maintenance template is not at the top but somewhere in the body of the article, you might instead use a section edit link.
- Delete the template:
- If you are editing wikitext ("source" editing): Delete the template code. The template code you see in this edit mode will usually be in the following form, as in the example above: <nowiki></nowiki>.
- If you are editing using VisualEditor: Click on the template (tag), which will then turn blue. Press the "Delete" or backspace key on your keyboard.
- Leave a descriptive edit summary, e.g., "Removed ''insert because I have fixed the issue."
- Click .
Changing a template
A case in point is the {{Unreferenced|date= template example used above. It is placed on pages with no references. Thus, adding just one suitable reference renders that maintenance template inapplicable. However, that change does not take care of the overarching issue of poor sourcing. In this example, a change to a different template may be appropriate, depending on the type, quality, depth, and manner of sourcing added to fix the issue, such as , , , or one of the many others listed at Template messages/Sources of articles.
Conversely, some templates flag highly discrete issues where there is no need to consider a switch to another template. For example, if an article is "orphaned" – no other articles in the main article namespace link to it – then once that is taken care of (by the addition of links to it from other articles), the issue is gone entirely and the tag's removal is unambiguous.
When a flagged issue has been addressed in parts of an article but remains in discrete sections, clarity may be served by replacing the template with a section variant, or by use of , if such versions of the template exist.
In some cases, it may be helpful to request a review of a maintenance template's removal or proposed removal with the editor who initially added it to the article at issue.
Specific template guidance
Click "show" at the right to display the instructions.
Some articles will be flagged for multiple discrete problems using a single template: . If you take care of one or more problems that it flags but not all, do not remove the template entirely but just those parameters in it that you have fixed. The example below shows three different issues flagged by this template:
All of Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines have as a common denominator the need for reliable sourcing. For example, the content of Wikipedia articles must be in ; the of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are in nature, which are of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not , the sources cited must directly support the material being presented without analysis or synthesis to reach or imply a conclusion that is not stated in the sources.
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, having redirects such as }}, {{Name of template|date=Month Year}}, {{Unreferenced}}, {{Unreferenced|date=, and }}, and displaying when reading as:
flags the issue of an article containing no references at all. This template no longer applies once a single reference appears in the article, whether placed through the preferred method of inline citations, ones appearing in a section, or even through such a poor method as including an embedded raw link.
To address the issue, add citations to reliable sources. Because of their importance, Wikipedia contains numerous instruction pages on aspects of referencing. We suggest starting with Referencing for beginners and Introduction to referencing/1, and then seeing Citing sources for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides, and tutorials. A visual guide to placing inline citations through <nowiki></nowiki> tags may also help, and appears below.
| Formatting references using inline citations | |
| All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the " cite.php" form of inline citations, using the {{Unsourced}} elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening {{Unverified}} tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a {{No references}} tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: {{No sources}} followed by the citation text and a closing {{Unref}} tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref> ... </ref>. For these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <ref></ref> or, most commonly, the template, which can be modified to display the references in columns using <ref>. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article. | |
| Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode' | What it produces when you save |
| Two separate citations.</ref>{{xt|Citation text.}}<ref name="name">{{xt|Citation text2.}}</ref>
</ref><ref> | Two separate citations.Citation text.Citation text2.
|
| Templates that can be used between </ref> tags to format references | |
As noted higher on this page, unless you thoroughly source a page in response to this template, it may more appropriate to switch this template with a more specific one rather than simply removing it. Depending on the type, quality, depth, and manner of sourcing added to fix the issue, you might replace it with , , or a host of others listed at Template messages/Sources of articles.
All of Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines have as a common denominator the need for reliable sourcing. For example, the content of Wikipedia articles must be in ; the of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are in nature, which are of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not , the sources cited must directly support the material being presented without analysis or synthesis to reach or imply a conclusion that is not stated in the sources.
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, having redirects such as <ref name="multiple">, </ref>, <ref name="multiple" /> and <ref name="multiple" />, and displaying when reading as:
flags the issue of an article that has some, but insufficient inline citations to support the material currently in the article. It should not be used for articles with no sources at all ( should be used instead), nor for articles without inline citations but which contain some sources ( should be used instead), nor for an article on ( should be used instead). This template no longer applies once an article has been made fairly well-sourced.
To address the issue, add additional inline citations to reliable sources for all significant statements in the article. Whether or not an article has been rendered "fairly well sourced" may involve a judgment call, but in any event, the sources used must be ones, and articles should not rely predominantly on , but rather on sources. Note the minimum: all quotations, material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.
All of Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines have a common denominator: the need for reliable sourcing. For example, the content of Wikipedia articles must be in ; the of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are in nature, which are of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not , the sources cited must directly support the material being presented without analysis or synthesis to reach or imply a conclusion that is not stated in the sources.
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, and having redirects such as {{Reflist}}, <ref></ref>, {{Refimprove|date= and }}, and displaying when reading as:
flags the issue of an article that contains some form of sourcing but lacks the precision of to associate given portions of material with a specific reliable source(s) that support that material. Inline citations make accessible. In short, in the absence of an inline citation that associates specific material to a specific source, it becomes very difficult for a reader to check what sources, given in only some general manner, verify what items of content.
To address the issue, add inline citations to reliable sources, ideally for all significant statements in the article. Note that at a minimum: all quotations, material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.
There are many instruction pages that directly and indirectly give guidance on adding inline citations. We suggest starting with Referencing for beginners and Introduction to referencing/1, and then seeing Citing sources for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides, and tutorials. A visual guide to placing inline citations through <nowiki></nowiki> tags may also help, and appears below.
| Formatting references using inline citations | |
| All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the " cite.php" form of inline citations, using the {{Improve references}} elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening {{Verify}} tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a {{More sources}} tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: {{Citations needed}} followed by the citation text and a closing {{No footnotes|date= tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: }}. For these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code {{Citations}} or, most commonly, the template, which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{No citations}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article. | |
| Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode' | What it produces when you save |
| Two separate citations.{{Inline citations}}{{xt|Citation text.}}{{No inline citations}}{{xt|Citation text2.}}<ref> ... </ref>
</ref> | Two separate citations.Citation text.Citation text2.
|
| Templates that can be used between <ref name="name" /> tags to format references | |
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, having among other redirects <references/>, and displaying when reading as:
flags the issue of an article that too heavily relies on primary sources – original materials that are close to an event; often accounts written by people who are directly involved – as opposed to , and to some extent, . Primary sources have their place but they must be used carefully and are easy to misuse. Typically, they should only be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. They should not be used to support content that presents interpretation, analysis, evaluation, or synthesis, and should not be the predominant form of sourcing in an article. Moreover, primary sources are generally not useful to demonstrate a topic's .
To address the issue, add citations predominantly to secondary sources. Often this involves replacing some of the primary sources with secondary sources, and not just adding them alongside existing ones—especially where the primary source is being used for an invalid purpose such as interpretive claims and synthesis.
Finding secondary sources is a large topic but make use of Google Books, News, and Scholar; find local newspaper archives; go to a library; if you have access, use pay/subscription services like JSTOR, Newspaperarchive.com; Ancestry.com, etc.; see our guide on and others listed here; request access to pay/prescription sources at . If insufficient reliable secondary and independent sources exist treating a topic in substantive detail, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. Remember that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.
Wikipedia is an , a specific type of reference work properly containing articles on topics of knowledge. Wikipedia employs the concept of to avoid of topics by attempting to ensure that the subjects of articles are "worthy of notice"by only including articles on topics that the world has taken note of by substantively treating them in reliable sources unconnected with the topic.
The general notability standard thus presumes that topics are notable if they have "received significant coverage in that are of the subject".
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, having redirects such as {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, <ref>, </ref><ref> and </ref>, and displaying when reading as:
(or some variation linking to one of the subject-specific notability guidelines) questions whether a topic is notable. As stated in the template, addressing the issue requires adding citations to reliable secondary sources. There are several common mistakes seen in addressing this issue:
- Adding citations but to unreliable sources: We are looking for treatment in sources like mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, magazines, scholarly journals, television and radio documentaries, etc. – sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means generally not random personal websites, blogs, forum posts, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, like open wikis (including ), etc. In short, read and understand Identifying reliable sources.
- Adding citations to connected (non-independent) sources: While sources may be useful to verify certain facts, they must be used with caution and do nothing to establish notability. In short, we are looking for written by third parties to a topic.
- Adding citations to sources that merely mention the topic: You can cite numerous reliable, secondary, independent sources and it will not help establish notability if they do not treat the topic substantively – think generally two paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue. Remember: it is much better to cite two good sources that treat a topic in detail, than twenty that just mention it in passing. Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic and, if good sources are present in the mix, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess a topic's demonstration of notability.
If insufficient reliable secondary and independent sources exist treating a topic in substantive detail, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. Remember that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, and having redirects such as <ref name="multiple">, </ref>, <ref name="multiple" /> and <ref name="multiple" />, and displaying when reading as:
flags the issue of an article that reads like an Advertising. For example, such articles may tell users to buy a company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, use unencyclopedic or meaningless , be filled with and read like the website of the article's topic or a press release touting its virtues, rather than that of a -written encyclopedia article about the topic.
Advertisements are by no means limited to commercial topics and indeed are often seen for all manner of others, such as "noble causes", religious/spiritual leaders, sports teams, gaming clans and so forth. If the article's main problem is not advertising per se, then you can change the tag to something more appropriate, such as or or . Pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic may be tagged for speedy deletion under using or .
To address the issue, rewrite the article from a is not just about the wording and tone, but also what the article covers and what it does not cover. Wikipedia articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Removing all promotional language is a good start, but depending on what is left, may only be a surface treatment. See what you can salvage, but often editors strip out all but the most basic content, leaving it in a state. If you want to build a solid article, explore the existence of independent sources for the topic, and build it from the ground up.
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, and having redirects such as {{Reflist}}, <ref></ref>, {{Primary sources|date=, }} and {{Primary}}, and displaying when reading as:
flags the issue of an article that has been identified as having a serious issue of balance, the lack of a , and the tagger wishes to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. An unbalanced or non-neutral article does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. This tag is meant to be accompanied by an explanation on the article's talk page about why it was added, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved;
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given;
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, and having redirects such as {{Notability|date=, }}, {{Notable}}, {{Non-notable}} and {{Nn}}, and displaying when reading as:
flags the issue of an article that fails to follow Wikipedia's standard article layout guidelines by introducing the reader to the topic in a lead section containing a summary of the most important article contents. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is , and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
To address the issue, write a lead section. The size of an appropriate lead will depend on the breadth of the article but it should be no more than four well-composed paragraphs, and should generally not contain content that is not already present in the body of the article.
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:
(or a subject-specific variation listed on Current event templates) warns editors and readers about an article that is the subject of a current event, such as a , that is accordingly experiencing a great flux of edits and is in a fast-changing state. Wikipedia attracts numerous editors who want to update articles in real time immediately after such current events are published. However, sources for breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies, so these templates can also draw attention to the need to add improved sources as soon as they become available.
The template should generally be removed when the event described is no longer receiving massive editing attention. It is not meant to be a general disclaimer indicating that an article's contents may not be accurate, or to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic (if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have the {{Significance}} template, with no informational consequence). If the article continues to have sourcing or cleanup issues, a more appropriate maintenance template should be used instead.
, typically placed by the code <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:
flags an article as having bare URLs, URLs that are used as references or external links without contextual information. These bare URLs are particularly vulnerable to link rot, as the record of the reference depends on the hosting website maintaining the current site structure, which is not guaranteed. A change in the underlying URL could make the reference unusable. The full citation format, on the other hand, preserves information (such as title and author) that can be used to restore a version of the reference that is still accessible. In addition, bare URLs can be less visually pleasing if the underlying URL is long.
To address this issue, convert all bare URLs used as references to the appropriate citation template format. For bare URLs which are not used as references, use the following format: bare_URL. Depending on the specific URL, it may be necessary to use an archiving service to restore an URL. More information is available at .
Researching the tagged issue
To access the template and thereby see its documentation, type into the search field Template:, followed by the name of the template, seen when you view its placement in the Edit interface (typically found in the first lines of the article). The first "parameter" is the name of the template.
For example, if you found this in the Edit interface, <nowiki></nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki></nowiki>, then you would visit the template itself by searching for Template:Unreferenced. The accompanying documentation for all maintenance templates, if it exists, can be located in this way.
Still need help?
See also
- Template messages
- Template
- Tagging pages for problems (TAGGING)
- Template messages/Disputes
- – produces an inline tag (rather than banner) for individual bare URLs
