Help:Maintenance template removal

Further information: Wikipedia:Responsible tagging and Wikipedia: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 else manually 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 an edit summary, and saving the page.

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maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place.

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

Addressing the flagged problem

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 templates below.

Many common templates address problems with article citations and references, or their lack – because reliable sourcing is the lifeblood of Wikipedia articles and at the core of all of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, such as notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. But a host of other issues may be flagged, including tone and style of writing, structure, and formatting, lack of links to or from other articles, compliance with Wikipedia's manual of style and the lack of a lead 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, a citation needed template used might be {{Unreferenced}} – typically placed by the code you would see when wikitext (source) editing: {{Unreferenced|date=May 2024}}.

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

Example:

This template contains several links, 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 understand why the template was placed on the page, and how to address the issue of the article being unreferenced:

• "cite", which links to the content guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources;
• "sources", which links to the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability; and
• "adding citations to reliable sources", which links to a help page providing a how-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 whatever its 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 the specific template guidance section below.

When to remove

Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without a conflict of interest may 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, seek consensus on the talk 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 the edit summary accompanying your removal, ideally with a link to 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 the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral 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 for general age-related removal of maintenance templates – that is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old is not considered 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 issue cannot actually be addressed. For example, if an article is flagged as lacking citations to reliable, secondary sources, written by third-parties to the topic, and a user seeing the maintenance templates discovers that such sources appear not to exist, that usually means the article should be deleted. In such cases, it is not so much that the template does not belong and should be removed, but rather that flagging the page for maintenance will never address the more critical issue that the page itself does not belong on Wikipedia at all.

When not to remove

You 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 under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;
5. You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict 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 a section 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 descriptive edit summary, e.g., "Removed [insert the name of template] because I have fixed the issue;"
4. Click Publish 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 the edit summary.

A case in point is the {{Unreferenced}} template example used above. It is placed on pages with no references. Thus, adding just one suitable reference renders that maintenance template inapplicable. However, that change does not take care of the overarching issue of poor sourcing. In this example, a change to a different template may be appropriate, depending on the type, quality, depth, and manner of sourcing added to fix the issue, such as {{refimprove}}, {{No footnotes}}, {{Primary sources}}, or one of the many others listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.

Conversely, some templates flag highly discrete issues where there is no need to consider a switch to another template. For example, if an article is "orphaned" – no other articles in the main article namespace link to it – then once that is taken care of (by the addition of links to it from other articles), the issue is gone entirely and the tag's removal is unambiguous.

When a flagged issue has been addressed in parts of an article but remains in discrete sections, clarity may be served by replacing the template with a section variant, or by use of inline 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 but not all, do not remove the template entirely but just those parameters in it that you have fixed. The example below shows three different issues flagged by this template:

{{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 be verifiable in reliable sources; the notability of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are secondary in nature, which are independent of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not original 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=May 2024}}, having redirects such as {{Unsourced}}, {{Unverified}}, {{No references}}, {{No sources}}, and {{Unref}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article containing no references at all. This template no longer applies once a single reference appears in the article, whether placed through the preferred method of inline citations, ones appearing in a general references section, or even through such a poor method as including an embedded raw link.

To address the issue, add citations to reliable sources. Because of their importance, Wikipedia contains numerous instruction pages on aspects of referencing. We suggest starting with Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1, and then seeing Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides, and tutorials. A visual guide to placing inline citations through <ref> ... </ref> tags may also help, and appears below.

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <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 references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <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 our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>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. Multiple citation use. 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 noted higher on this page, unless you thoroughly source a page in response to this template, it may more appropriate to switch this template with a more specific one rather than simply removing it. Depending on the type, quality, depth, and manner of sourcing added to fix the issue, you might replace it with {{refimprove}}, {{No footnotes}}, {{Primary sources}} or a host of others listed at Wikipedia: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 be verifiable in reliable sources; the notability of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are secondary in nature, which are independent of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not original 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=May 2024}}, having redirects such as {{Improve references}}, {{Verify}}, {{More sources}} and {{Citations needed}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article that has some, but insufficient inline citations to support the material currently in the article. It should not be used for articles with no sources at all ({{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 on living 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 sources for all significant statements in the article. Whether or not an article has been rendered "fairly well sourced" may involve a judgment call, but in any event, the sources used must be reliable ones, and articles should not rely predominantly on primary sources, but rather on secondary sources. Note the minimum: all quotations, material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

{{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 be verifiable in reliable sources; the notability of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are secondary in nature, which are independent of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not original 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=May 2024}}, and having redirects such 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 of inline citations to associate given portions of material with a specific reliable source(s) that support that material. Inline citations make verifiability accessible. In short, in the absence of an inline citation that associates specific material to a specific source, it becomes very difficult for a reader to check what sources, given in only some general manner, verify what items of content.

To address the issue, add inline citations to reliable sources, ideally for all significant statements in the article. Note that at a minimum: all quotations, material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

There are many instruction pages that directly and indirectly give guidance on adding inline citations. We suggest starting with Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1, and then seeing Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides, and tutorials. A visual guide to placing inline citations through <ref> ... </ref> tags may also help, and appears below.

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <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 references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <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 our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>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. Multiple citation use. 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=May 2024}}, having among other redirects {{Primary}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article that too heavily relies on primary sources – original materials that are close to an event; often accounts written by people who are directly involved – as opposed to secondary, 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's notability.

To address the issue, add citations predominantly to secondary sources. Often this involves replacing some of the primary sources with secondary sources, and not just adding them alongside existing ones—especially where the primary source is being used for an invalid purpose such as interpretive claims and synthesis.

Finding secondary sources is a large topic but make use of Google Books, News, and Scholar; find local newspaper archives; go to a library; if you have access, use pay/subscription services like JSTOR, Newspaperarchive.com; Ancestry.com, etc.; see our guide on free English newspaper sources and others listed here; request access to pay/prescription sources at WP: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 that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

{{Notability}}

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a specific type of reference work properly containing articles on topics of knowledge. Wikipedia employs the concept of notability to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics by attempting to ensure that the subjects of articles are "worthy of notice" – by only including articles on topics that the world has taken note of by substantively treating them in reliable sources unconnected with the topic.

The general notability standard thus presumes that topics are notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

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

(or some variation linking to one of the subject-specific notability guidelines) questions whether a topic is notable. As stated in the template, addressing the issue requires adding citations to reliable secondary sources. There are several common mistakes seen in addressing this issue:

• Adding citations but to unreliable sources: We are looking for treatment in sources like mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, magazines, scholarly journals, television and radio documentaries, etc. – sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means generally not random personal websites, blogs, forum posts, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, self-published sources like open wikis (including other Wikipedia articles), etc. In short, read and understand Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
• Adding citations to connected (non-independent) sources: While primary sources may be useful to verify certain facts, they must be used with caution and do nothing to establish notability. In short, we are looking for secondary sources written by third parties to a topic.
• Adding citations to sources that merely mention the topic: You can cite numerous reliable, secondary, independent sources and it will not help establish notability if they do not treat the topic substantively – think generally two paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue. Remember: it is much better to cite two good sources that treat a topic in detail, than twenty that just mention it in passing. Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic and, if good sources are present in the mix, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess a topic's demonstration of notability.

If insufficient reliable secondary and independent sources exist treating a topic in substantive detail, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. Remember that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

{{Advert}}

{{Advert}}, typically placed by the code {{Advert|date=May 2024}}, and having redirects such as {{Advertisement}}, {{Advertising}}, {{Ad}} and {{Puff}}, and displaying when reading as:

flags the issue of an article that reads like an advertisement. For example, such articles may tell users to buy a company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords, be filled with peacock language and read like the website of the article's topic or a press release touting its virtues, rather than that of a neutrally-written encyclopedia article about the topic.

Advertisements are by no means limited to commercial topics and indeed are often seen for all manner of others, such as "noble causes", religious/spiritual leaders, sports teams, gaming clans and so forth. If the article's main problem is not advertising per se, then you can change the tag to something more appropriate, such as {{COI}} or {{Peacock}} or {{POV check}}. Pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic may be tagged for speedy deletion under section G11 of the criteria using {{db-g11}} or {{db-spam}}.

To address the issue, rewrite the article from a neutral point of view – which is not just about the wording and tone, but also what the article covers and what it does not cover. Wikipedia articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Removing all promotional language is a good start, but depending on what is left, may only be a surface treatment. See what you can salvage, but often editors strip out all but the most basic content, leaving it in a stub state. If you want to build a solid article, explore the existence of independent sources for the topic, and build it from the ground up.

{{POV}}

{{POV}}, typically placed by the code {{POV|date=May 2024}}, and having redirects such 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 a neutral 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, reliable secondary sources. This tag is meant to be accompanied by an explanation on the article's talk page about why it was added, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that 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=May 2024}}, and having redirects such 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 standard article layout guidelines by introducing the reader to the topic in a lead section containing a summary of the most important article contents. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, 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=May 2024}}, and displaying when reading as:

(or a subject-specific variation listed on Wikipedia:Current event templates) warns editors and readers about an article that is the subject of a current event, such as a breaking 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 a general disclaimer indicating that an article's contents may not be accurate, or to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic (if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have the {{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=May 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 appropriate citation 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 at Repairing 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 the template page itself.

To access the template and thereby see its documentation, type into the search field Template:, followed by the name of the template, seen when you view its placement in the Edit interface (typically found in the first lines of the article). The first "parameter" is the name of the template.

For example, if you found this in the Edit interface, {{Unreferenced|date=May 2024}}, then you would visit the template itself by searching for Template:Unreferenced. The accompanying documentation for all maintenance templates, if it exists, can be located in this way.

Still need help?

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 the Teahouse, a page designed for new users to ask questions. Alternatively, you could try the more general Help 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