Help:Maintenance template removal

Further information:Wikipedia:Responsible taggingandWikipedia:Tag bombing

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 template message".

Maintenance templates are added and removed by volunteers. This help page explains the process for examining and removing such templates.

Overview

Maintenance templates(or "tags" ) are not removed automatically. Even if you fix the issue(s) described in a maintenance template, the tag will remain in the article until you or someone elsemanually removes it.The mechanics of removal are usually as simple as clicking "Edit" at the top of the page or in the section involved (if you're not already in edit mode), removing the code that produces the display of the template, leaving anedit summary,and saving the page.

It isnotokay 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maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place.

Wikipedia works because of the efforts of volunteers just like you, makingbold editsto help build this encyclopedia. Fixing problems and then removing maintenance templates when you are done is important in that effort.

Addressing the flagged problem

We don't know which maintenance tag brought you to this page, and thus what specific problem needs attention. However, every maintenance template contains links to help pages, policies, guidelines, or other relevant pages that provide information on the problem the template was placed to flag. You will also find guidance on some of the more common templatesbelow.

Many common templates address problems with article citations and references, or theirlack– because reliable sourcing is the lifeblood of Wikipedia articles and at the core of all of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, such asnotability,verifiability,neutral point of view,andno original research.But a host of other issues may be flagged, includingtoneandstyle of writing,structure, and formatting,lack of links to or from other articles, compliance with Wikipedia'smanual of styleand the lack of alead section.

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

If the issue flagged by the maintenance template is that the article contains no references, acitation neededtemplate used might be{{Unreferenced}}– typically placed by the code you would see when wikitext (source) editing:{{Unreferenced|date=June 2024}}.

It is important to understand that what you see whenreadingan article, and what you see wheneditingit, are different unless you're in Visual editing mode. Thus, the above code, only seen when doing source editing, results in thedisplayof the 'called' template below:

Example:

This template contains severallinks,indicated by the words and phrases in blue. Three of these links are to pages that, when explored, provide context and resources for you to understandwhythe template was placed on the page, andhowto address the issue of the article beingunreferenced:

• "cite", which links to the content guidelineWikipedia:Citing sources;
• "sources", which links to the policyWikipedia:Verifiability;and
• "adding citations to reliable sources", which links to a help page providing ahow-to guide to the basics of citing references.

Whatever maintenance tag brought you to this help page should likewise contain relevant explanatory links addressed to whateverits issue is.Read these explanatory and contextual pages to learn about the problem and what it is you need to do to take care of it. Again, some of the more common maintenance templates seen are addressed in thespecific template guidance section below.

When to remove

Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without aconflict of interestmay remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances:

1. When the issue has been adequately addressed;
2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);
3. 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, seekconsensuson thetalk page;
4. When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);
5. 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 theedit summaryaccompanying your removal, ideally with alinkto the location);
6. When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant, such as a{{Current}}template appearing in an article that no longer documents a current event;
7. If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example, neutrality-related templates such as{{COI}}(associated with theconflict of interest guideline) or{{POV}}(associated with theneutral point of view policy) 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;
8. 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 forgeneralage-related removal of maintenance templates – that is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old isnotconsidered a sufficient argument. Exception: removing POV-related templates whose discussions have gone dormant is encouraged, as addressed in the bullet point immediately above;
9. Lastly, there are times when a person attempting to address a maintenance template that flags some fundamental matter may find that the issuecannotactually be addressed. For example, if an article is flagged as lacking citations toreliable,secondarysources, written bythird-partiesto the topic, and a user seeing the maintenance templates discovers that such sources appearnot to exist,that usually means the article should bedeleted.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 should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply:

1. You do not understand the issues raised by the template;
2. The issue has not yet been resolved;
3. There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
4. The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article underWikipedia's policies and guidelines;
5. You have been paid to edit the article or have some otherconflict of interest[exceptions apply: see individual template documentation].

Removal

Have you carefully read the help pages and thoroughly fixed the problem? Or have you made a considered decision that the template is not, or is no longer, applicable? Great! Now, to remove the maintenance template:

1. Either click on "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 asection edit link;
2. 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:{{Name of template|date=Month Year}}.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.
3. Leave a descriptiveedit summary,e.g., "Removed [insert the name of template] because I have fixed the issue; "
4. ClickPublish changes.

That's it. Thank you!

Changing a template

Problems flagged by some templates may imply secondary problems that will still exist after you take care of the main issue. In such cases, it may be more appropriate to switch the template to another applicable one following your edits, rather than just removing it. The reasoning behind the change in templates should be addressed in theedit summary.

A case in point is the {{Unreferenced}} template example used above. It is placed on pages withno references.Thus, adding just one suitable reference renders that maintenance template inapplicable. However, that change does not take care of theoverarching 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{{refimprove}},{{No footnotes}},{{Primary sources}},or one of the many others listed atWikipedia: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 themain article namespacelink 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 ofinline cleanup tags,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

This section guides you on how to address some of the more common specific templates that may have brought you to this help page. More detailed information about the templates can be found by following the links to the templates themselves.

Click "show" at the right to display the instructions.

{{Multiple issues}}

Some articles will be flagged for multiple discrete problems using a single template:{{Multiple issues}}.If you take care of one or more problems that it flags butnot all,do not remove the template entirely but just thoseparametersin it that you have fixed. The example below shows three different issues flagged by this template:

{{Multiple issues|
{{Orphan|date=January 2008}}
{{POV|date=June 2009}}
{{One source|date=March 2011}}
}}

If you address the "orphaning" issue, but not the other two, remove just the line that flagged the orphan issue and leave the others intact. Thus, your removal would leave the template in this state.

{{Multiple issues|
{{POV|date=June 2009}}
{{One source|date=March 2011}}
}}

See the sections below for how to address some of the more common problems flagged by templates that may be wrapped into this template.

{{Unreferenced}}

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 beverifiableinreliable sources;thenotabilityof a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that aresecondaryin nature, which areindependentof the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions" ); and to establish that the content is notoriginal research,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.

{{Unreferenced}},typically placed by the code{{Unreferenced|date=June 2024}},havingredirectssuch as {{Unsourced}}, {{Unverified}}, {{No references}}, {{No sources}}, and {{Unref}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article containingno referencesat all. This template no longer applies once a single reference appears in the article, whether placed through the preferred method ofinline citations,ones appearing in ageneral referencessection, or even through such a poor method as including anembedded 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 withHelp:Referencing for beginnersandHelp:Introduction to referencing/1,and then seeingWikipedia:Citing sourcesfor 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<ref>... </ref>tags may also help, and appears below.

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should beverifiedbycitationstoreliable sources.Our preferred method of citation is using the"cite.php"form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> 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 referencessectionafter the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ( "/" ). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name= "name" > followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name= "name" />. For these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <references/> or, most commonly, the template,{{Reflist}}which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Per ourstyle guidelines,the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citationcode; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref> Multiple<ref name= "multiple" >Citation text3.</ref>citation<ref name= "multiple" />use.<ref name= "multiple" /> == References == {{Reflist}}	Two separate citations. Multiplecitationuse. References_________________
Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}}•{{Cite web}}•{{Cite book}}•{{Cite news}}•{{Cite journal}}•Others•Examples

As notedhigher 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{{refimprove}},{{No footnotes}},{{Primary sources}}or a host of others listed atWikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.

{{Refimprove}}

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 beverifiableinreliable sources;thenotabilityof a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that aresecondaryin nature, which areindependentof the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions" ); and to establish that the content is notoriginal research,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.

{{Refimprove}},typically placed by the code{{Refimprove|date=June 2024}},havingredirectssuch as {{Improve references}}, {{Verify}}, {{More sources}} and {{Citations needed}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article that has some, butinsufficientinline citations to support the material currently in the article. It should not be used for articles with no sources at all ({{unreferenced}}should be used instead), nor for articles without inline citations but which contain some sources ({{No footnotes}}should be used instead), nor for an article onliving persons({{BLP sources}}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 sourcesfor 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 bereliableones, and articles should not rely predominantly onprimary sources,but rather onsecondarysources. Note theminimum: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.

{{No footnotes}}

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 beverifiableinreliable sources;thenotabilityof a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that aresecondaryin nature, which areindependentof the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions" ); and to establish that the content is notoriginal research,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.

{{No footnotes}},typically placed by the code{{No footnotes|date=June 2024}},and havingredirectssuch as {{Citations}}, {{No citations}}, {{Inline citations}} and {{No inline citations}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article that contains some form of sourcing but lacks the precision ofinline citationsto associate given portions of material with a specific reliable source(s) that support that material. Inline citations makeverifiabilityaccessible. 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 aminimum: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 withHelp:Referencing for beginnersandHelp:Introduction to referencing/1,and then seeingWikipedia:Citing sourcesfor 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<ref>... </ref>tags may also help, and appears below.

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should beverifiedbycitationstoreliable sources.Our preferred method of citation is using the"cite.php"form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> 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 referencessectionafter the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ( "/" ). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name= "name" > followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name= "name" />. For these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <references/> or, most commonly, the template,{{Reflist}}which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Per ourstyle guidelines,the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citationcode; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref> Multiple<ref name= "multiple" >Citation text3.</ref>citation<ref name= "multiple" />use.<ref name= "multiple" /> == References == {{Reflist}}	Two separate citations. Multiplecitationuse. References_________________
Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}}•{{Cite web}}•{{Cite book}}•{{Cite news}}•{{Cite journal}}•Others•Examples

{{Primary sources}}

{{Primary sources}},typically placed by the code{{Primary sources|date=June 2024}},having among other redirects {{Primary}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article that too heavily relies onprimary sources– original materials that are close to an event; often accounts written by people who are directly involved – as opposed tosecondary,and to some extent,tertiary sources.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'snotability.

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 onfree English newspaper sourcesand others listedhere;request access to pay/prescription sources atWP:RX.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 thatno amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

{{Notability}}

Wikipedia is anencyclopedia,a specific type of reference work properly containing articles on topics of knowledge. Wikipedia employs the concept ofnotabilityto avoidindiscriminate inclusionof topics by attempting to ensure that the subjects of articles are "worthy of notice" – by only including articles on topics that the world has takennoteof by substantively treating them in reliable sources unconnected with the topic.

The general notability standard thus presumes that topics are notable if they have "receivedsignificant coverageinreliable sourcesthat areindependentof the subject".

{{Notability}},typically placed by the code{{Notability|date=June 2024}},havingredirectssuch as {{Notable}}, {{Non-notable}}, {{Nn}} and {{Significance}}, and displaying when reading as:

(or some variation linking to one of thesubject-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 generallynotrandom personal websites, blogs, forum posts, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter,self-published sourceslike open wikis (includingother Wikipedia articles), etc. In short, read and understandWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
• Adding citations to connected (non-independent) sources:Whileprimarysources may be useful to verify certain facts, they must be used with caution and do nothing to establish notability. In short, we are looking forsecondary sourceswritten bythird partiesto 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 overkillto 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 thatno amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

{{Advert}}

{{Advert}},typically placed by the code{{Advert|date=June 2024}},and havingredirectssuch as {{Advertisement}}, {{Advertising}}, {{Ad}} and {{Puff}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article that reads like anadvertisement.For example, such articles may tell users to buy a company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, use unencyclopedic or meaninglessbuzzwords,be filled withpeacock languageand read like the website of the article's topic or a press release touting its virtues, rather than that of aneutrally-written encyclopedia articleaboutthe 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 advertisingper se,then you can change the tag to something more appropriate, such as{{COI}}or{{Peacock}}or{{POV check}}.Pages that areexclusivelypromotionaland would need to befundamentallyrewritten to become encyclopedic may be tagged for speedy deletion undersection G11 of the criteriausing{{db-g11}}or{{db-spam}}.

To address the issue, rewrite the article from aneutral point of view– which is not just about the wording and tone, but also what the article covers and what itdoes not cover.Wikipedia articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have beenpublished by reliable sourceson 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 astubstate. If you want to build a solid article, explore the existence of independent sources for the topic, and build it from the ground up.

{{POV}}

{{POV}},typically placed by the code{{POV|date=June 2024}},and havingredirectssuch as {{NPOV}}, {{POV dispute}}, {{Neutrality}}, {{Neutral}} and {{Not neutral}}, 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 aneutral point of view,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, reliablesecondary 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:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or theNPOV Noticeboardthat the issue has been resolved;
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given;
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

{{Lead missing}}

{{Lead missing}},typically placed by the code{{Lead missing|date=June 2024}},and havingredirectssuch as {{No lead}}, {{Nointro}}, {{No lead section}}, {{Lead absent}} and {{Intro needed}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article that fails to follow Wikipedia's standardarticle layout guidelinesby introducing the reader to the topic in alead sectioncontaining 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 isnotable,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.

{{Current}}

{{Current}},typically placed by the code{{Current|date=June 2024}},and displaying when reading as:

(or a subject-specific variation listed onWikipedia:Current event templates) warns editors and readers about an article that is the subject of a current event, such as abreaking news story,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 ageneral disclaimerindicating 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 {{Current}} template, with no informational consequence). If the article continues to have sourcing or cleanup issues, a more appropriate maintenance template should be used instead.

{{Linkrot}}

{{Linkrot}},typically placed by the code{{Linkrot|date=June 2024}},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 appropriatecitation template format.For bare URLs which are not used as references, use the following format: [bare_URL Descriptive text]. Depending on the specific URL, it may be necessary to use an archiving service to restore an URL. More information is available atRepairing a dead link.

Researching the tagged issue

As noted previously, most templates contain links to guidance pages. Additionally, many templates have documentation that provides more information about the template's flagged issue, which is displayed when you visit thetemplate page itself.

To access the template and thereby see its documentation, type into the search fieldTemplate:,followed by thename 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,{{Unreferenced|date=June 2024}},then you would visit the template itself by searching forTemplate:Unreferenced.The accompanying documentation for all maintenance templates, if it exists, can be located in this way.

Still need help?

If you've read through this page and are still confused about what needs to be done to fix an issue on a page and remove a maintenance template, try asking at theTeahouse,a page designed for new users to ask questions. Alternatively, you could try the more generalHelp desk,or seek live assistance at the IRC channel:#wikipedia-en-help.

See also

• Wikipedia:Template messages
• Help:Template
• Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems(WP:TAGGING)
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes
• {{Bare URL inline}}– produces an inline tag (rather than banner) for individual bare URLs