← Back to home

Help:Maintenance Template Removal

Apparently, even the most self-evident tasks require a manual. Consider this your grudgingly provided guide to navigating the labyrinth of maintenance templates on Wikipedia. If you're fortunate enough to grasp the concepts presented, you might even be able to improve something. If not, well, at least you tried.

For those who enjoy reading beyond the obvious, or perhaps require additional, more advanced remedial education, further information can be found at Wikipedia:Responsible tagging and Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Don't say you weren't given options.

This particular page, for the record, is merely a how-to guide. It exists to elucidate certain concepts or processes that the collective known as the Wikipedia community employs. It is emphatically not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, meaning it carries the weight of varying levels of consensus, which, in practical terms, often means "some people agree, some don't, and you're still expected to figure it out." A delightful ambiguity, wouldn't you agree?

Shortcuts

In a nutshell, for those who prefer their instructions distilled to their bare, uninspiring essence: Should you stumble upon a maintenance template – a digital scarlet letter, if you will – understand that you, dear volunteer, have the opportunity to contribute. If you've managed to comprehend the underlying issue flagged by the template and, more importantly, have actually fixed it to a reasonable degree, you are then permitted to manually remove the template. This isn't some automated system of self-correction; the universe, much like Wikipedia, expects you to do the work. The template will not vanish through sheer willpower or digital magic.

And since we're dispensing warnings, let's be explicitly clear: legitimate Wikipedia editors operate on the quaint notion of volunteerism. They will never solicit or accept payment for the removal of maintenance templates. If someone offers such a transaction, you're likely dealing with a paid editing scam. Consider yourself warned against those who would monetize basic encyclopedia upkeep.

Many, if not most, Wikipedia pages regrettably display various maintenance templates. These digital flags serve as glaring indicators of inherent problems within the content. It’s highly probable you've landed on this particular page precisely because you clicked a link on one of these templates, a link that, with a rather optimistic tone, suggested, "Learn how and when to remove this message." Prepare yourself; the learning curve may be steeper than you anticipate.

These maintenance templates are not placed by omniscient algorithms, nor are they removed by them. They are the work of fellow, often weary, volunteers. This page, therefore, attempts to demystify the arduous process of examining these templates, understanding their implications, and ultimately, if you're capable, removing them. Don't expect a parade.

Overview

Let's establish a foundational truth: Maintenance templates, often affectionately (or perhaps resignedly) referred to as "tags," are not removed by some invisible, benevolent force. They are not self-cleaning. Even if you, in a moment of rare diligence, manage to rectify the issue(s) so eloquently described within a particular maintenance template, that digital anathema will stubbornly cling to the article until you or some other equally burdened soul manually intervenes. The actual mechanics of this removal process are, thankfully, less complex than understanding the nuances of quantum physics. Typically, it involves little more than locating the "Edit" button at the top of the page (or within the specific section you've valiantly fixed), identifying and deleting the arcane code that generates the template's display, providing a concise yet informative edit summary detailing your actions, and then, with a flourish of finality, saving the page. It's a testament to human persistence, or perhaps, a glaring flaw in automation.

It is, however, unequivocally unacceptable to remove these maintenance templates until the problem they so diligently flag has been adequately addressed. That is, the template must no longer accurately reflect a valid issue. The only exception, and a rare one at that, is if the template was demonstrably misplaced or never truly belonged in the first instance. These templates are not mere suggestions or personal opinions; they are diagnostic tools. Removing them prematurely is akin to tearing a warning label off a faulty product; it doesn't fix the problem, it merely hides it from the next unsuspecting user.

The very edifice of Wikipedia stands upon the collective, often thankless, efforts of volunteers. Individuals just like you, making bold edits (and occasionally, bold mistakes) in a continuous endeavor to construct this sprawling encyclopedia. To fix problems, to elevate the quality of content, and then, with satisfaction, to remove the maintenance templates once your work is complete, is not merely helpful; it is an essential contribution to this grand, chaotic project. Don't underestimate the power of a clean slate, even if it's just a digital one.

Addressing the flagged problem

Shortcuts

Regrettably, I lack the clairvoyance to ascertain precisely which particular maintenance tag had the dubious honor of ushering you to this page. Consequently, I cannot pinpoint the exact problem demanding your immediate, and likely reluctant, attention. However, it's not entirely a shot in the dark. Every single maintenance template, without exception, is embedded with a series of crucial links. These digital breadcrumbs lead to various help pages, established policies, official guidelines, or other pertinent resources, all designed to illuminate the specific issue that prompted the template's placement. Should you, against all odds, decide to engage with these resources, you will find a wealth of information. Furthermore, for your convenience, guidance on some of the more ubiquitous templates is thoughtfully provided below, saving you the exhaustive effort of independent discovery.

It should come as no cosmic shock that a significant number of common templates are designed to address deficiencies in article citations and references, or, more often, their conspicuous absence. This prevalence is not arbitrary; it stems from the fundamental truth that reliable sourcing is the very lifeblood of any credible Wikipedia article. It forms the core, the unshakeable foundation, of all of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Without it, concepts such as notability, verifiability, a neutral point of view, and the absolute prohibition of no original research would simply crumble into meaningless platitudes. However, the issues flagged extend far beyond mere sourcing. A multitude of other deficiencies might be highlighted, including problems with the tone and style of writing, structural inconsistencies, improper formatting, a glaring lack of internal links to or from other articles, non-compliance with Wikipedia's overarching manual of style, or the absence of a proper lead section to introduce the article's subject.

Before you even contemplate the removal of any template, ensure, with an almost obsessive degree of certainty, that the issue has been definitively resolved. This, naturally, demands a certain level of commitment on your part—to genuinely comprehend both the nature of the problem and the appropriate methodology for its resolution. Anything less is merely shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

An example

To illustrate this rather fundamental concept, let us consider a scenario where an article stands accused of containing no references whatsoever. In such a dire situation, a citation needed template like {{Unreferenced}} would typically be deployed. When you venture into the hallowed halls of wikitext (source) editing, you would likely encounter the raw, unadorned code: {{Unreferenced|date=November 2025}}.

It is absolutely crucial to grasp that the pristine, user-friendly rendition you perceive when merely reading an article is a vastly different beast from the raw code you confront when editing it, unless, of course, you're dabbling in the visual editing mode. Thus, the aforementioned code, a cryptic string of characters visible only in source editing, undergoes a magical transformation, resulting in the display of the 'called' template presented below:

Example:

This article does not cite any sources . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Maintenance template removal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

Observe this template carefully; it is not merely a pretty banner. It is a portal. It contains several prominent links, conspicuously highlighted in blue. These aren't decorative flourishes; they are your pathways to enlightenment. Specifically, three of these links, when pursued, will generously furnish you with the necessary context and resources to understand precisely why this template was affixed to the page, and, more importantly, how to rectify the egregious sin of an unreferenced article:

Regardless of which specific maintenance tag had the misfortune of bringing you to this help page, it will, without fail, contain its own set of relevant explanatory links, each meticulously tailored to address its particular issue. Your directive, should you choose to accept it, is to read these explanatory and contextual pages. Absorb their wisdom. Understand the problem. And then, perhaps, you might be equipped to actually do something about it. Again, for the intellectually weary, some of the more common maintenance templates are addressed in the specific guidance section further below. You’re welcome.

When to remove

Shortcut

Let's be clear: maintenance templates are not intended to be permanent fixtures in articles. They are temporary warnings, not eternal monuments to editorial failure. Any user, provided they are not burdened by a conflict of interest (a concept we'll touch upon later, for your own good), is permitted to remove a maintenance template under any of the following, rather specific, circumstances:

  • When the issue has been adequately addressed: This isn't a suggestion for a superficial patch-up. "Adequately" means the core problem the template identified has been genuinely, thoroughly, and demonstrably resolved. No half-measures.
  • Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else): The identity of the fixer is largely irrelevant; the fact of the fix is paramount. If the problem no longer exists, the template has outlived its usefulness.
  • If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error: Such things happen, even among the diligent. However, before unilaterally deleting it, consider extending the courtesy of discussing the matter with the original placer of the template. Unless, of course, that user has long since vanished into the digital ether, in which case, proceed with caution. In any scenario where the issue appears contentious or ambiguous, the prudent course of action is to seek consensus on the article's dedicated talk page. It saves everyone a lot of unnecessary drama later.
  • When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it): Some templates, particularly those flagging subjective issues, explicitly demand an accompanying discussion on the talk page to justify their presence. If the tagger couldn't be bothered to provide context, the template's legitimacy is severely undermined.
  • 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: Democracy, even in its digital form, has its place. If the community has reached an agreement on how to proceed, and you are the one executing that plan, then the template's removal is a logical step. It is considered good form, almost a necessity, to meticulously note the location of this consensus in the edit summary accompanying your removal, ideally with a precise link to the discussion. Transparency, after all, is a virtue.
  • When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant: Time moves on, and so do events. A {{Current}} template, for instance, is designed for articles documenting rapidly unfolding events. If the event has long since ceased to be "current," the template's presence is simply an anachronism. Remove it.
  • If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported: Certain templates, particularly those dealing with sensitive or subjective issues, carry an implicit or explicit expectation of supporting discussion. Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) are prime examples; they strongly recommend that the editor who placed the tag initiate a discussion (typically on the article's talk page) to substantiate its placement. If the original tagger neglected this crucial step, or if the discussion has withered into dormancy, and no other justification for the template's presence exists, then its removal is entirely justifiable. Similarly, a {{notability}} tag may be removed—and, crucially, may not be re-added—if an article has successfully navigated an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion review, indicating a community decision on the topic's notability.
  • You may remove a template when, according to your best judgment, the prolonged absence of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not being sufficiently critical to warrant fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"): This requires a discerning eye and a degree of confidence. While we don't have a hard rule for removing templates purely based on age (i.e., "it's old, so it's gone"), a prolonged period of utter inactivity around a flagged issue can imply that the community, by its very inaction, has tacitly agreed it's not a priority. A notable exception, and one that is actively encouraged, is the removal of POV-related templates whose discussions have become dormant, as highlighted in the preceding point.
  • Lastly, there are those rare, almost existential, moments when a user diligently attempting to address a maintenance template discovers that the underlying issue is, in fact, utterly unaddressable: Imagine an article flagged for lacking citations to reliable, secondary sources, written by third-parties to the topic. Now, imagine our diligent user searches exhaustively only to conclude that such sources appear not to exist. In such a grim scenario, the problem isn't merely that the template doesn't belong; it's that the article itself doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Flagging it for maintenance becomes a futile exercise, a distraction from the more fundamental truth that the page should, in all likelihood, be subjected to the deletion process. Sometimes, the patient is beyond treatment, and the only logical step is to pull the plug.

When not to remove

Shortcuts

For those moments when common sense eludes you, here is a rather explicit list of circumstances under which you should, under no uncertain terms, refrain from removing maintenance templates. Consider this a preventative measure against unnecessary headaches, both yours and everyone else's:

  • You do not understand the issues raised by the template: This is not a suggestion; it is a fundamental prerequisite. If the problem described by the template remains an enigma to you, your intervention is more likely to cause further damage than to solve anything. Step away from the delete button.
  • The issue has not yet been resolved: This should be self-explanatory, yet it bears repeating. Removing a template before the problem is fixed is not "fixing" anything; it's merely sweeping dirt under the rug. The dirt remains, only now it's less visible.
  • There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue: If the community is actively engaged in trying to resolve the problem, your unilateral removal of the template is disruptive. It's like turning off the lights in the middle of a delicate surgery. Wait for the procedure to conclude.
  • The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: Some issues are non-negotiable. If the template points to a fundamental flaw that directly violates a core policy (e.g., lack of verifiability for contentious claims), removing it without rectifying the underlying issue is akin to declaring gravity optional. It simply won't work.
  • You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest: This is a critical point. Individuals with a conflict of interest, especially those engaged in paid editing, are generally prohibited from removing maintenance templates related to their conflicted topic. Their motivations are, by definition, not aligned with Wikipedia's neutral, encyclopedic goals. While some rare exceptions might apply (always consult individual template documentation if you believe you qualify), assume this rule applies to you. Don't test it.

Removal

So, you've diligently navigated the treacherous waters of help pages, perhaps even managed to thoroughly fix the problem at hand? Or, with a rare flash of insight, you've concluded that the template was either never applicable or has gracefully aged into irrelevance? Excellent. A glimmer of hope, perhaps. Now, for the rather pedestrian, yet crucial, act of removing the maintenance template:

  • Access the editing interface: Locate and click either "edit" or "edit source" at the very top of the page, or, if you're feeling particularly precise, within the specific section where the template currently resides.
  • Delete the template code:
    • If you are editing using VisualEditor: This is the more visually intuitive route. Simply click directly on the template (the tag itself), which should then magically illuminate in blue, signifying its selection. Once highlighted, press either the "Delete" key or the backspace key on your keyboard. Poof.
    • If you are editing wikitext ("source" editing): This requires a slightly more surgical approach. You must meticulously delete the actual template code. This code, as observed in the example above, typically presents itself in the following, rather distinct, form: {{Name of template|date=Month Year}}. Be careful not to delete any surrounding, legitimate content.
  • Provide a descriptive edit summary: This is not optional. Your edit summary should be clear, concise, and informative. Something along the lines of, "Removed [ name of template ] because I have fixed the issue," or "Removed {{Unreferenced}} as sources have been added," would suffice. Vague summaries are the hallmark of those who haven't actually done anything useful.
  • Finalize your changes: Click the "Publish changes" button.

That's it. You've done the bare minimum, and for that, a grudging "thank you."

Changing a template

It's rarely as simple as a binary choice between "remove" or "keep." Problems flagged by some templates often hint at a deeper, more systemic issue that might persist even after you've addressed the initial, surface-level concern. In such nuanced cases, a more appropriate course of action might be to switch the template to a different, more fitting one, rather than simply deleting it altogether. The rationale behind this template transformation should, naturally, be articulated with crystal clarity in your edit summary.

Consider, for instance, our oft-cited example of the {{Unreferenced}} template. This particular tag is affixed to pages that are utterly devoid of references. Adding a solitary, suitable reference, even a mediocre one, immediately renders the {{Unreferenced}} template technically inapplicable. However, let's not be naive; this single act of referencing does not magically resolve the broader, overarching issue of generally poor sourcing within the article. In this precise scenario, a strategic shift to a more accurate template would be highly appropriate. The choice depends entirely on the type, quality, depth, and specific manner of sourcing you've introduced to address the initial problem. You might, for instance, consider {{refimprove}}, {{No footnotes}}, {{Primary sources}}, or indeed, any of the myriad other options meticulously cataloged at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.

Conversely, some templates flag issues that are, by their very nature, highly discrete and self-contained, offering no need for such intricate template gymnastics. For example, if an article is deemed "orphaned"—meaning no other articles within the main article namespace bother to link to it—then once that singular issue is rectified (by the addition of links from other relevant articles), the problem is entirely eradicated. In such cases, the tag's removal is unambiguous and definitive.

Furthermore, if a flagged issue has been meticulously addressed in certain segments of an article but stubbornly persists in other, discrete sections, clarity (and indeed, sanity) may be better served by replacing the overarching template with a section-specific variant. Alternatively, if such versions are unavailable, the judicious use of inline cleanup tags can pinpoint the remaining problems with surgical precision.

In some instances, particularly if you anticipate disagreement or simply seek validation, it can be remarkably helpful to solicit a review of a maintenance template's removal (or proposed removal) from the editor who initially placed it on the article in question. A little collegiality, however rare, can go a long way.

Specific template guidance

This section, begrudgingly compiled for your enlightenment, aims to provide specific guidance on how to tackle some of the more common templates that might have, through sheer digital fate, led you to this help page. Do not mistake this for comprehensive instruction; for truly exhaustive information regarding these templates, you are encouraged to follow the embedded links to the templates themselves. Consider this a brief, yet pointed, overview.

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

{{Multiple issues}}

Some articles, in their sprawling imperfection, will be burdened by a multitude of discrete problems, all conveniently (or inconveniently) consolidated under the umbrella of a single template: {{Multiple issues}}. If you, in your commendable effort, manage to address one or more of the issues it flags, but, alas, not all of them, the directive is clear: do not remove the entire template. Instead, surgically excise only those parameters within it that correspond to the problems you have successfully rectified. For illustrative purposes, observe the following example, which showcases three distinct issues flagged by this rather comprehensive template:

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

Should you, for instance, address the "orphaning" issue, successfully connecting the article to the broader Wikipedia ecosystem, but leave the other two problems untouched, your task is not to obliterate the entire block. Instead, you would remove only the specific line of code that flagged the orphan issue, leaving the remaining concerns intact. Thus, your careful intervention would leave the template in this state:

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

For guidance on how to tackle the specific problems often encapsulated within this template, refer to the subsequent sections. Consider this a treasure map to incremental improvement.

Let's reiterate a foundational truth, one that apparently requires constant reinforcement: all of Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines share a common, irreducible denominator – the absolute necessity for reliable sourcing. This isn't a suggestion; it's the bedrock. For example, the very content of Wikipedia articles must be demonstrably verifiable through reliable sources. The notability of any given topic must be established not just through any sources, but specifically through reliable sources that are secondary in nature, independent of the topic itself, and which treat the subject in substantive detail (mere passing mentions are utterly insufficient). Furthermore, to ensure that the content presented is not original research, the cited sources must directly and unambiguously support the material, without requiring any interpretive analysis or synthesis on the part of the editor to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated within those sources. This is not optional; it is fundamental to the integrity of the encyclopedia.

The {{Unreferenced}} template, typically invoked by the code {{Unreferenced|date=November 2025}}, and accessible via various redirects such as {{Unsourced}}, {{Unverified}}, {{No references}}, and {{No sources}}, presents itself in the following manner when an article is viewed:

This article does not cite any sources . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Maintenance template removal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

This template flags the rather severe issue of an article containing no references whatsoever. Crucially, this template technically ceases to apply once a single reference, any reference, makes an appearance in the article. This holds true whether it's placed using the preferred method of inline citations, relegated to a general references section, or even, in a moment of utter desperation, included as a poorly formatted embedded raw link. The bar for removal is surprisingly low for this specific tag, but understand that merely adding one token reference does not absolve the article of deeper sourcing issues.

To genuinely address the problem, your task is to actively add citations to reliable sources. Given their paramount importance, Wikipedia, in its infinite wisdom, offers a plethora of instruction pages dedicated to various aspects of referencing. For the uninitiated, we strongly recommend commencing your journey with Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1. Once those foundational concepts have, hopefully, taken root, you may then proceed to Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more comprehensive and involved treatment. Do note that each of these pages thoughtfully includes "see also" sections, linking to an even broader array of additional help pages, guides, and tutorials. For those who benefit from visual aids (and apparently, many do), a visual guide to placing inline citations using the <ref> ... </ref> tags is also provided below, to spare you the agony of pure textual instruction.

  • Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

Let's establish this unequivocally: all information presented within Wikipedia articles must be verified by concrete citations pointing to reliable sources. Our preferred, indeed almost mandated, methodology for citation involves the "cite.php" format of inline citations, employing the rather elegant <ref></ref> elements. Through this method, every instance where a particular source is utilized for information (and let us be explicitly clear: do not copy word-for-word!), a corresponding footnote is strategically placed within the text, "inline." This footnote, when clicked, acts as a portal, whisking the reader away to the full details of the source, which are meticulously laid out in a dedicated "References" section following the main body of the article.

In essence, the process is deceptively simple: wherever you desire a footnote to appear within a given piece of text, you initiate with an opening <ref> tag. This is immediately followed by the textual detail of the citation itself—the information you wish to manifest at the bottom of the article—and then conclusively sealed with a closing </ref> tag. Pay particular attention to that closing slash ("/"). For those instances where a single reference must be invoked multiple times, efficiency dictates that the opening ref tag be assigned a unique name, thus: <ref name="name">, followed by the citation text, and, as always, a closing </ref> tag. Subsequently, each time you wish to reuse that specific footnote, you merely employ the initial element, now adorned with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />.

For these meticulously crafted references to actually appear on the page, you must, with a degree of digital prescience, instruct the software precisely where to display them. This is achieved either through the archaic code <references/> or, far more commonly and conveniently, by deploying the {{Reflist}} template. This template, for those with an aesthetic sensibility, can be further modified to arrange the references into elegant columns using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Adhering to our style guidelines, these references should, without exception, be presented in a distinct section explicitly denominated "References," positioned logically after the main body of the article. This is not arbitrary; it is for readability.

Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'

What it produces when you save

Two separate citations. Citation text. Citation text2.

Multiple Citation text3. citation use.

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

Two separate citations. [1] [2]

Multiple [3] citation [3] use. [3]

References _________________

  • ^ Citation text.
  • ^ Citation text2.
  • ^ a b c Citation text3.

Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

As previously noted higher on this page, unless you meticulously and thoroughly source an entire page in direct response to this template, it is often more judicious to replace this template with a more specific one, rather than simply obliterating it. Depending on the precise type, quality, depth, and manner of sourcing you've introduced to rectify the issue, you might consider replacing it with {{refimprove}}, {{No footnotes}}, {{Primary sources}}, or indeed, any of the extensive list of options available at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. Choose wisely.

Again, for those whose memories are as ephemeral as a fleeting thought, let's reiterate the unassailable truth: all of Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines are inextricably linked by the absolute necessity for reliable sourcing. This is not a quaint suggestion; it is the fundamental pillar upon which the entire edifice rests. To elaborate, the content within Wikipedia articles must be verifiable through reliable sources. The very notability of a topic can only be convincingly demonstrated through such reliable sources that are, crucially, secondary in nature, independent of the subject, and which delve into the topic with substantive detail (mere passing mentions are utterly inadequate for this purpose). Furthermore, to ensure that the content is not merely original research, the cited sources must directly and unambiguously support the material being presented, without any need for editorial analysis or synthesis to arrive at or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated within the sources themselves.

The {{Refimprove}} template, typically invoked by the code {{Refimprove|date=November 2025}}, and accessible via various redirects such as {{Improve references}}, {{Verify}}, {{More sources}}, and {{Citations needed}}, manifests itself in the following manner when an article is viewed:

This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Maintenance template removal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

This template flags the issue of an article that, while possessing some references, suffers from an insufficiency of inline citations to adequately support all the material currently presented within it. It is important to note where this template is not to be used: it should not be applied to articles entirely devoid of sources (for which {{unreferenced}} is the appropriate choice), nor to articles that contain general sources but lack specific inline citations (for which {{No footnotes}} is more precise). Furthermore, it is generally unsuitable for articles concerning living persons, where {{BLP sources}} provides a more stringent standard. This template becomes obsolete once an article has been transformed into a reasonably well-sourced piece of content.

To address this particular issue, your task is to diligently add additional inline citations to reliable sources for all significant statements within the article. The determination of whether an article has achieved the elusive state of being "fairly well-sourced" may, admittedly, involve a degree of subjective judgment. Nevertheless, certain principles remain non-negotiable: all sources employed must be reliable ones, and articles should assiduously avoid relying predominantly on primary sources, favoring instead the more analytical and interpretive insights offered by secondary sources. Pay particular attention to the minimum requirements: any and all quotations, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and any contentious material—be it negative, positive, or neutral—pertaining to living persons, must include an inline citation that directly and unambiguously supports that specific piece of information. This is not a request; it is a mandate.

As tedious as it may be to repeat, the fundamental truth remains: every single one of Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines converges upon a singular, undeniable principle—the absolute necessity for reliable sourcing. This isn't merely a preference; it is the linchpin. For instance, the very content of Wikipedia articles must be unequivocally verifiable through the lens of reliable sources. The notability of any given topic is not a subjective whim but must be rigorously demonstrated through such reliable sources that are, by their very nature, secondary, independent of the topic itself, and which engage with the subject in substantial detail (mere fleeting mentions are demonstrably insufficient). And, to definitively establish that the content avoids the pitfalls of original research, the sources cited must directly and unambiguously support the material presented, without requiring any interpretive analysis or synthesis on the part of the editor to derive or imply a conclusion not explicitly articulated within those sources. This is the foundation; deviate at your peril.

The {{No footnotes}} template, typically invoked by the code {{No footnotes|date=November 2025}}, and accessible via various redirects such as {{Citations}}, {{No citations}}, {{Inline citations}}, and {{No inline citations}}, manifests itself in the following, rather pointed, manner when an article is viewed:

This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations . Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

This template flags a particularly frustrating issue: an article that does contain some form of sourcing—perhaps a general bibliography, a list of external links, or even a section of "related reading"—but tragically lacks the crucial precision of inline citations. Without these precise markers, it becomes impossible to definitively associate specific portions of the material with the exact reliable source(s) that purportedly support it. Inline citations are not a stylistic flourish; they are the gateway to accessible verifiability. In essence, in the absence of an inline citation that directly links specific content to a specific source, it becomes an arduous, if not impossible, task for a reader to ascertain which of the generally provided sources actually verifies which particular item of content. It's a game of "find the needle in the haystack," and readers rarely have the patience for it.

To address this issue, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to diligently add inline citations to reliable sources, ideally for all significant statements within the article. At a bare minimum, and this is non-negotiable: all direct quotations, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and any contentious material (regardless of its negative, positive, or neutral bent) pertaining to living persons, must be accompanied by an inline citation that directly and unambiguously supports that specific piece of information.

There exists a veritable library of instruction pages, both direct and indirect, offering guidance on the art and science of adding inline citations. For those embarking on this journey, we suggest beginning with Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1. From there, for a more comprehensive and intricate exploration, delve into Wikipedia:Citing sources. It's worth noting that each of these pages thoughtfully includes "see also" sections, linking to an even broader array of additional help pages, guides, and tutorials. For those who, despite all textual explanations, still struggle, a visual guide to placing inline citations using the <ref> ... </ref> tags is also provided below, to minimize further confusion.

  • Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

Let's establish this unequivocally: all information presented within Wikipedia articles must be verified by concrete citations pointing to reliable sources. Our preferred, indeed almost mandated, methodology for citation involves the "cite.php" format of inline citations, employing the rather elegant <ref></ref> elements. Through this method, every instance where a particular source is utilized for information (and let us be explicitly clear: do not copy word-for-word!), a corresponding footnote is strategically placed within the text, "inline." This footnote, when clicked, acts as a portal, whisking the reader away to the full details of the source, which are meticulously laid out in a dedicated "References" section following the main body of the article.

In essence, the process is deceptively simple: wherever you desire a footnote to appear within a given piece of text, you initiate with an opening <ref> tag. This is immediately followed by the textual detail of the citation itself—the information you wish to manifest at the bottom of the article—and then conclusively sealed with a closing </ref> tag. Pay particular attention to that closing slash ("/"). For those instances where a single reference must be invoked multiple times, efficiency dictates that the opening ref tag be assigned a unique name, thus: <ref name="name">, followed by the citation text, and, as always, a closing </ref> tag. Subsequently, each time you wish to reuse that specific footnote, you merely employ the initial element, now adorned with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />.

For these meticulously crafted references to actually appear on the page, you must, with a degree of digital prescience, instruct the software precisely where to display them. This is achieved either through the archaic code <references/> or, far more commonly and conveniently, by deploying the {{Reflist}} template. This template, for those with an aesthetic sensibility, can be further modified to arrange the references into elegant columns using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Adhering to our style guidelines, these references should, without exception, be presented in a distinct section explicitly denominated "References," positioned logically after the main body of the article. This is not arbitrary; it is for readability.

Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'

What it produces when you save

Two separate citations. Citation text. Citation text2.

Multiple Citation text3. citation use.

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

Two separate citations. [1] [2]

Multiple [3] citation [3] use. [3]

References _________________

  • ^ Citation text.
  • ^ Citation text2.
  • ^ a b c Citation text3.

Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

The {{Primary sources}} template, typically invoked by the code {{Primary sources|date=November 2025}}, and accessible through various redirects including {{Primary}}, presents itself in the following, rather critical, manner when an article is viewed:

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources . Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Maintenance template removal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

This template flags the pervasive issue of an article that leans too heavily, almost precariously, on primary sources. These are the original materials, the raw data, the accounts written by those directly involved in an event—the dispatches from the front lines, the original scientific papers, the autobiographies. While primary sources undeniably have their rightful place in an encyclopedia, they are notoriously easy to misuse and demand an almost surgical level of care. Typically, their utility is confined to supporting straightforward, descriptive statements of verifiable facts—facts that any educated person with access to the source could confirm without requiring further, specialized knowledge or interpretation. They are, however, utterly inappropriate for supporting content that involves interpretation, analysis, evaluation, or synthesis. To use them predominantly in an article is to invite accusations of original research, a cardinal sin here. Moreover, primary sources are generally quite useless when attempting to demonstrate a topic's notability; for that, you need the world outside the subject to have taken notice.

To address this particular issue, your primary directive is to diligently add citations predominantly to secondary sources. This often necessitates a more radical approach than simply adding new sources; it frequently involves replacing some of the existing primary sources with robust secondary sources, especially in instances where the primary source was being improperly wielded to support interpretive claims or synthetic arguments.

The quest for secondary sources is a vast and multifaceted undertaking, but some avenues are more fruitful than others. Make liberal use of tools like Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar. Explore local newspaper archives; they often hide forgotten treasures. If you have access, leverage subscription services such as JSTOR, Newspaperarchive.com, or Ancestry.com. Consult our dedicated guide on free English newspaper sources and explore the others listed here. Should you find yourself hitting a paywall, you can always request access to pay/subscription sources at WP:RX. If, after all this effort, you genuinely find that insufficient reliable secondary and independent sources exist that treat the topic in substantive detail, then a harsh but necessary truth emerges: Wikipedia should not, in fact, have an article on that topic. Remember this immutable law: no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Sometimes, the greatest service is to admit defeat.

Let us be clear: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A very specific type of reference work, designed to contain articles on subjects of established knowledge. To prevent the indiscriminate inclusion of every fleeting thought or obscure detail, Wikipedia employs the concept of notability. This concept is designed to ensure that the subjects deemed worthy of an article are, in fact, "worthy of notice"—meaning they have genuinely been taken note of by the world at large, as evidenced by substantive treatment in reliable sources that are entirely unconnected with the topic itself.

The general notability standard, therefore, operates under the presumption that topics are notable if, and only if, they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is the core principle; everything else is commentary.

The {{Notability}} template, typically invoked by the code {{Notability|date=November 2025}}, and accessible via various redirects such as {{Notable}}, {{Non-notable}}, {{Nn}}, and {{Significance}}, manifests itself in the following, rather direct, manner when an article is viewed:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline . Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Maintenance template removal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

This template (or some variation linking to one of the more specific subject-specific notability guidelines) serves to question the fundamental notability of a topic. As the template itself rather pointedly states, addressing this issue requires the addition of citations to reliable secondary sources. However, experience dictates that several common mistakes plague attempts to rectify this problem:

  • Adding citations but to unreliable sources: This is a common, and utterly futile, endeavor. We are not looking for any sources; we are looking for treatment in sources with established credibility: mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, reputable magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals, well-produced television and radio documentaries, and so forth. These are sources that possess editorial oversight and a demonstrable reputation for rigorous fact-checking and accuracy. This explicitly excludes random personal websites, blogs, forum posts, social media platforms (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter), self-published sources like open wikis (and yes, that *includes other Wikipedia articles](/Wikipedia:CIRCULAR) – don't cite Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia), and similar ephemeral or unvetted content. In short, if you haven't already, you need to read, absorb, and understand Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It's not optional.
  • Adding citations to connected (non-independent) sources: While primary sources may occasionally be useful for verifying specific, straightforward facts, they must be used with extreme caution and, crucially, contribute precisely nothing to establishing a topic's notability. What we require are secondary sources, those analytical and interpretive works produced by third parties who are genuinely independent of the topic itself. If the source is published by the subject, or is directly promotional, it will not count towards notability.
  • Adding citations to sources that merely mention the topic: This is another exercise in futility. You could amass a veritable mountain of reliable, secondary, independent sources, and it would still fail to establish notability if those sources do not treat the topic substantively. Think in terms of significant coverage—generally, at least two substantial paragraphs of text focused specifically on the topic at hand. Remember this simple truth: it is infinitely more effective to cite two genuinely good sources that delve into a topic in detail than twenty sources that merely offer a passing mention. Moreover, the practice of citation overkill with sources containing only trivial mentions is not a strength; it's a glaring red flag, often indicative of a non-notable topic. If truly good sources are present within such a deluge, they will be effectively hidden, making it impossible for anyone to properly assess the topic's demonstrated notability.

If, after a genuinely exhaustive search, you find that insufficient reliable secondary and independent sources exist that treat a topic in substantive detail, then the conclusion is stark and unavoidable: Wikipedia should not, in fact, host an article on that topic. This brings us back to the immutable law: no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Accept it and move on.

The {{Advert}} template, typically invoked by the code {{Advert|date=November 2025}}, and accessible via various redirects such as {{Advertisement}}, {{Advertising}}, {{Ad}}, and {{Puff}}, manifests itself in the following, rather unmistakable, manner when an article is viewed:

This article contains promotional content . Please help improve it by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

This template flags the pervasive issue of an article that, rather than informing, reads suspiciously like an advertisement. Such articles might brazenly instruct users to purchase a company's product, offer detailed price lists, provide direct links to online retailers, or be riddled with unencyclopedic or utterly meaningless buzzwords. They frequently employ what we affectionately call "peacock language"—inflated, self-congratulatory prose—and generally resemble a company's official website or a press release touting its own virtues, rather than a neutrally-written encyclopedia article about the topic.

It's crucial to understand that "advertisements" are by no means confined to purely commercial topics. Indeed, this promotional tone is often observed across a wide spectrum of subjects, including articles about "noble causes," religious or spiritual leaders, sports teams, gaming clans, and a host of other entities seeking to present themselves in an exclusively positive light. If the article's primary flaw isn't strictly advertising per se, but rather a more generalized bias, then it might be more appropriate to swap the tag for something like {{COI}}, {{Peacock}}, or {{POV check}}. In particularly egregious cases, where a page is exclusively promotional and would require a fundamental, top-to-bottom rewrite to even begin to resemble an encyclopedic entry, it may be eligible for speedy deletion under section G11 of the criteria, utilizing {{db-g11}} or {{db-spam}}. Sometimes, the only solution is to burn it down and start over.

To address the issue, your task is to rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. This isn't merely about adjusting the wording and tone; it's also fundamentally about what the article covers and, equally important, what it does not cover. Wikipedia articles are expected to represent, fairly and proportionately, and as far as humanly possible, without editorial bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a given topic. Removing all overtly promotional language is a necessary first step, but depending on the state of what remains, this might only constitute a superficial treatment. See what salvageable content exists, but often, editors find it necessary to strip out all but the most basic, factual content, leaving the article in a rudimentary stub state. If your goal is to construct a truly solid, encyclopedic article, your best bet is to actively seek out and build from existing independent sources, effectively rebuilding the article from the ground up, free from its promotional past.

The {{POV}} template, typically invoked by the code {{POV|date=November 2025}}, and accessible via various redirects such as {{NPOV}}, {{POV dispute}}, {{Neutrality}}, {{Neutral}}, and {{Not neutral}}, manifests itself in the following, rather contentious, manner when an article is viewed:

The neutrality of this article is disputed . Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

This template flags the critical issue of an article that has been identified as suffering from a serious imbalance, a profound lack of a neutral point of view. The editor who placed this tag typically intends to attract other editors with potentially divergent viewpoints to the article, hoping to foster a more balanced perspective. An unbalanced or non-neutral article, by definition, fails to fairly and proportionately represent the spectrum of perspectives found in high-quality, reliable secondary sources. This tag, by its very nature, is meant to be accompanied by a clear explanation on the article's talk page, detailing precisely why it was added and identifying specific issues that are actionable within the framework of Wikipedia's content policies. Without this crucial context, the tag often loses much of its utility.

This template is not, under any circumstances, intended to be a permanent resident on any article. You are permitted, even encouraged, to remove this template whenever any one of the following conditions is demonstrably true:

  • There is consensus on the talk page or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved: If the community has deliberated and agreed that neutrality has been achieved, the tag is obsolete.

  • It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given: If the original tagger failed to provide adequate context or clarification on the talk page, or if their explanation is so vague as to be unhelpful, the tag serves no constructive purpose.

  • In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant: A neutrality dispute that generates no discussion, or one where discussion has long since withered and died, implies that the issue is either not as pressing as initially thought or has simply been abandoned. In such cases, the tag becomes a relic, not a call to action.

  • {{Lead missing}}

The {{Lead missing}} template, typically invoked by the code {{Lead missing|date=November 2025}}, and accessible via various redirects such as {{No lead}}, {{Nointro}}, {{No lead section}}, {{Lead absent}}, and {{Intro needed}}, manifests itself in the following, rather self-evident, manner when an article is viewed:

This article has no lead section . Please add one in your own words. (November 2025)

This template flags the rather blatant issue of an article that fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standard article layout guidelines. Specifically, it lacks a proper introduction, known as a lead section, which is designed to immediately orient the reader to the topic by providing a concise summary of the article's most important contents. The lead section is not merely a stylistic preference; it serves a crucial function: it should be capable of standing alone as a self-contained, succinct overview of the article's subject matter. A truly effective lead section skillfully cultivates the reader's interest, encouraging them to delve deeper into the article, but it does so without resorting to teasing or hinting at content that follows. Instead, it should clearly identify the topic, establish its context, explain precisely why the topic is notable, and succinctly summarize the most critical points, including any prominent controversies that are discussed in the body of the article. It is the article's first impression, and it matters.

To address this issue, your task is, quite simply, to write a lead section. The appropriate length for a lead will naturally vary depending on the overall breadth and complexity of the article, but as a general rule, it should comprise no more than four well-composed paragraphs. Crucially, a lead section should not introduce new information that is not already elaborated upon in the main body of the article. It is a summary, not an expansion.

The {{Current}} template, typically invoked by the code {{Current|date=November 2025}}, and which displays as follows when an article is viewed:

This article documents a current event and may change rapidly. Please update outdated or incomplete information with citations to reliable sources. (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

(or a subject-specific variation as listed on Wikipedia:Current event templates) serves as a warning to both editors and readers. It signifies that the article in question pertains to a current event, such as a breaking news story, and is, consequently, experiencing a significant flux of edits and is in a state of rapid, sometimes chaotic, change. Wikipedia, being the magnet for immediate information that it is, attracts a multitude of editors eager to update articles in real-time as soon as such current events unfold. However, a crucial caveat exists: initial reports and sources for breaking news often contain inaccuracies or incomplete information. Therefore, these templates also serve the vital purpose of drawing attention to the ongoing need to incorporate improved, more stable, and more accurate sources as they become available.

The template should generally be removed once the event it describes is no longer commanding massive editorial attention and the rapid flux of updates has subsided. It is not intended to function as a general disclaimer implying that an article's contents might be inaccurate simply because they are recent, nor is it meant to mark an article that merely happens to have recent news coverage about its topic. If that were the case, hundreds of thousands of articles would be adorned with the {{Current}} template, rendering it utterly devoid of any useful informational consequence. If, after the "current event" status has passed, the article continues to suffer from sourcing or general cleanup issues, then a more precise and appropriate maintenance template should be employed instead. Be specific, for once.

The {{Linkrot}} template, typically invoked by the code {{Linkrot|date=November 2025}}, and which displays as follows when an article is viewed:

This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. Please consider converting them to full citations to ensure the article remains verifiable and maintains a consistent citation style. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation). (November 2025) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

This template flags an article for the rather pedestrian, yet critical, issue of containing bare URLs. These are simply URLs used as references or external links without any accompanying contextual information—no title, no author, no publication date. The fundamental problem with these bare URLs is their inherent vulnerability to link rot. The longevity and accessibility of such a reference are entirely dependent on the hosting website maintaining its current site structure and content, a guarantee that, in the ever-shifting landscape of the internet, is virtually nonexistent. A change in the underlying URL, a website redesign, or the outright deletion of the page can instantly render the reference unusable, leaving a gaping hole in the article's verifiability. A full citation format, conversely, meticulously preserves essential information such as the title and author, which can be invaluable for locating an archived version of the reference or finding an alternative, still-accessible source. Furthermore, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, bare URLs can be visually jarring and disruptive, particularly if the underlying URL is excessively long and convoluted.

To address this issue, your task is to methodically convert all bare URLs currently employed as references into the appropriate citation template format. For those bare URLs that are not serving as references but rather as external links, a simpler format can be adopted: [bare_URL Descriptive text]. In certain circumstances, especially when dealing with a link that has already succumbed to the inevitable march of link rot, it may become necessary to utilize an archiving service to retrieve and restore a functional version of the URL. More detailed instructions and guidance on this particular resuscitation effort are readily available at Repairing a dead link. Do the work; preserve the knowledge.

Researching the tagged issue

As previously, and perhaps tiresomely, noted, most templates are not entirely unhelpful. They contain explicit links to various guidance pages. Additionally, and perhaps even more usefully, many templates come equipped with their own dedicated documentation. This documentation provides a wealth of supplementary information regarding the template's flagged issue, and it is conveniently displayed when you bother to visit the template page itself.

To access this fount of template wisdom, simply type Template: into the search field, immediately followed by the precise name of the template. This name, for those who pay attention, is readily apparent when you view its placement in the Edit interface (it's typically found within the initial lines of the article's wikitext). The first "parameter" you see is, invariably, the name of the template.

For example, if your journey through the Edit interface revealed the code {{Unreferenced|date=November 2025}}, then your path to enlightenment would involve searching for Template:Unreferenced. The accompanying documentation for all maintenance templates, assuming it exists (and it usually does), can be located through this straightforward method. Consider it a testament to self-sufficiency, if you're capable of it.

Still need help?

If, despite having laboriously waded through this entire page, you find yourself still adrift in a sea of confusion regarding how to rectify an issue on a page and, ultimately, remove a maintenance template, then perhaps your cognitive faculties are more challenged than initially assumed. Nevertheless, here are a few options for the truly bewildered: try asking at the Teahouse, a digital sanctuary specifically designed for new users to pose their most basic questions. Alternatively, you could attempt the more general Help desk, where the patience of volunteers is occasionally tested. For those who crave immediate, albeit possibly curt, responses, live assistance is sometimes available on the IRC channel: #wikipedia-en-help. Just don't expect miracles.

See also

Wikipedia templates Main namespace

Other namespaces

All namespaces

Navboxes with templates

Inline images

Help pages

Related topics

Search