Help:Maintenance template removal: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:37, 31 March 2025

Latest revision as of 14:21, 23 August 2025

(15 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 3:

{{Further|Wikipedia:Responsible tagging|Wikipedia:Tag bombing}}

{{Wikipedia how to|WP:MTR|H:MTR}}

{{Nutshell|If you havecome theacross ability,a pleasemaintenance [[WP:BOLD|boldly]]template, assistyou Wikipediacan byhelp fixing the issues flagged by [[Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup|maintenance templates]]!<br>All problems on Wikipedia are resolved through the efforts of volunteers like you. If you understand the problem that the template highlights, such asflagged by reading the explanatory links it contains or have found guidance through this page –template and have ''reasonably fixed the issues'' –it, you may simplycan remove the maintenancetemplate templatemanually; it will <strong>not</strong> be removed automatically.}}

{{caution|Legitimate Wikipedia editors will never offer to remove maintenance templates in exchange for money. See the [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|paid editing scam warning]] for more information.}}

Many Wikipedia pages display [[Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup|maintenance templates]] that identify problems. You may have arrived at this help page after clicking a link on a maintenance template saying "<samp>''Learn how and when to remove this message''</samp>".

Line 11:

== Overview ==

[[WP:TM|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)fixed, removing the code that produces the display of the template, leaving an [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]], and saving the page.

It is <strong>not</strong> okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place. Maintenance templates are <strong>not</strong> to be used to express your personal opinion.

Line 22:

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 [[#Specific template guidance|below]].

Many common templates address problems with article citations and references, or their ''lack'' {{Ndash}} this is because reliable sourcing is the lifeblood of Wikipedia articles and at the core of all of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, such as [[WP:N|notability]], [[WP:V|verifiability]], [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]], and [[WP:NOR|no original research]]. But a host of other issues may be flagged, including [[:Template:Tone|tone]] and [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Style of writing|style of writing]], [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Structure, formatting and sections|structure, and formatting]], lack of links to or from other articles, compliance with Wikipedia's [[WP:MOS|manual of style]], and the lack of a [[WP:LEAD|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.

Line 44:

Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without a [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] may remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances:

#{{Anchor|1}} When the issue has been adequately addressed;

#{{Anchor|2}} WhenUpon determining that the issue has been adequatelyresolved (perhaps by someone addressedelse);

#{{Anchor|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 [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on the [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]];

# Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);

#{{Anchor|4}} When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);

# 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 [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on the [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]];

#{{Anchor|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 [[Help:Edit Summary|edit summary]] accompanying your removal, ideally with a [[Help:Link#Wikilinks|link]] to the ___location);

# When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);

#{{Anchor|6}} When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant, such as a {{tlx|Current}} template appearing in an article that no longer documents a current event;

# 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 [[Help:Edit Summary|edit summary]] accompanying your removal, ideally with a [[Help:Link#Wikilinks|link]] to the ___location);

#{{Anchor|7}} If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example, neutrality-related templates such as {{tlx|COI}} (associated with the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest guideline]]) or {{tlx|POV}} (associated with the [[WP:NPOV|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. A {{tlx|notability}} tag may be removed and may not be re-added if an article has passed an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] review.

# When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant, such as a {{tlx|Current}} template appearing in an article that no longer documents a current event;

#{{Anchor|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 "[[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|silent consensus]]"). Please note there is currently no consensus for ''general'' age-related removal of maintenance templates{{snd}}that is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old is ''not'' considered a sufficient argument. Exception:An exception is that removing POV-related templates whose discussions have gone dormant is encouraged, as addressed in the bullet point immediately above;.

# If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example, neutrality-related templates such as {{tlx|COI}} (associated with the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest guideline]]) or {{tlx|POV}} (associated with the [[WP:NPOV|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. A {{tlx|notability}} tag may be removed and may not be re-added if an article has passed an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] review.

#{{Anchor|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 [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable]], [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources, written by [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources|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 [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|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.

# 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 "[[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|silent consensus]]"). Please note there is currently no consensus for ''general'' age-related removal of maintenance templates{{snd}}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;

# 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 [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable]], [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources, written by [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources|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 [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|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 ==

Line 61 ⟶ 60:

# You do not understand the issues raised by the template;

# The issue has not yet been resolved;

# There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;

# The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]];

# You have been paid to edit the article or have some other [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] [(some 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 no longer applicable or never was? Great! Now, to remove the maintenance template:

# Click on either "edit" or "edit source" at the top of the page. Or if the maintenance template is not at the top but somewhere in the body of the article, you might instead use aor [[Help:Section#Section editing|section]] editwhere link]]the template is.

# Delete the template:

#* ''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.

#* ''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: <code><nowiki>{{Name of template|date=Month Year}}</nowiki></code>.

# Leave a descriptive [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]], e.g., "Removed [''insert the name of template''] because I have fixed the issue."

#* ''If you are editing using VisualEditor'': Click on the template (tag), which will then turn blue. Press the "Delete" or backspace key on your keyboard.

# Leave a descriptive [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]], e.g., "Removed [''insert the name of template''] because I have fixed the issue."

# Click {{button|{{int:publishchanges}}}}.

That's it. Thank you!

Line 78:

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 [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]].

A case in point is the <nowiki>{{Tl|Unreferenced}}</nowiki> 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 {{tlxtl|refimprove}}, {{tlxtl|No footnotes}}, {{tlxtl|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 "[[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]]" – no other articles in the [[Wikipedia:What is an article?#Namespace|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.

Line 91:

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" aton the right to display the instructions.'''

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|Multiple issues}}}}

Some articles will be flagged for multiple discrete problems using a single template: {{tlxtl|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 [[Help:Template#Parameters|parameters]] in it that you have fixed. The example below shows three different issues flagged by this template:

<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{Multiple issues|

{{Orphan|date=January 2008}}

Line 106:

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

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|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 [[WP:V|verifiable]] in [[WP:IRS|reliable sources]]; the [[WP:N|notability]] of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are ''[[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]]'' in nature, which are ''[[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent]]'' of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not [[WP:OR|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.

{{tlxtl|Unreferenced}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{Unreferenced|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, having [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] such as <nowiki>{{Unsourced}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Unverified}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{No references}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{No sources}}</nowiki>, and <nowiki>{{Unref}}</nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:

{{Unreferenced|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

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 [[Wikipedia:Inline citation|inline citations]], ones appearing in a [[WP:GENREF|general references]] section, or even through such a poor method as including an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links|embedded raw link]].

Line 133:

|}<!-- Template:Refref -->

{{Hidden end}}

As noted [[Help:Maintenance template removal#Changing to a different template|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 {{tlxtl|refimprove}}, {{tlxtl|No footnotes}}, {{tlxtl|Primary sources}} or a host of others listed at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles]].

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|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 [[WP:V|verifiable]] in [[WP:IRS|reliable sources]]; the [[WP:N|notability]] of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are ''[[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]]'' in nature, which are ''[[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent]]'' of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not [[WP:OR|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.

{{tlxtl|Refimprove}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{Refimprove|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, having [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] such as <nowiki>{{Improve references}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Verify}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{More sources}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Citations needed}}</nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:

{{Refimprove|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

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 ({{tlxtl|unreferenced}} should be used instead), nor for articles without inline citations but which contain some sources ({{tlxtl|No footnotes}} should be used instead), nor for an article on [[WP:BLP|living persons]] ({{tlxtl|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 [[WP:IRS|reliable]] ones, and articles should not rely predominantly on [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]], but rather on [[WP:SECONDARY|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.

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|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 [[WP:V|verifiable]] in [[WP:IRS|reliable sources]]; the [[WP:N|notability]] of a topic demonstrated through such reliable sources that are ''[[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]]'' in nature, which are ''[[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent]]'' of the topic and treat the subject in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"); and to establish that the content is not [[WP:OR|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.

{{tlxtl|No footnotes}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{No footnotes|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, and having [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] such as <nowiki>{{Citations}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{No citations}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Inline citations}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{No inline citations}}</nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:

{{No footnotes|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

flags the issue of an article that contains some form of sourcing but lacks the precision of [[WP:IC|inline citations]] to associate given portions of material with a specific reliable source(s) that support that material. Inline citations make [[WP:V|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.

Line 174:

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|Primary sources}}}}

{{tlxtl|Primary sources}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{Primary sources|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, having among other redirects <nowiki>{{Primary}}</nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:

{{Primary sources|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

flags the issue of an article that too heavily relies on [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|primary sources]] – original materials that are close to an event; often accounts written by people who are directly involved – as opposed to [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]], and to some extent, [[tertiary source]]s. 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 [[WP:N|notability]].

Line 183:

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 [[WP:FENS|free English newspaper sources]] and others listed [[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Navbox|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 [[Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability|no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability]].

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|Notability}}}}

Wikipedia is an [[WP:ENC|encyclopedia]], a specific type of reference work properly containing articles on topics of knowledge. Wikipedia employs the concept of [[WP:N|notability]] to avoid [[WP:IINFO|indiscriminate inclusion]] of topics by attempting to ensure that the subjects of articles are "worthy of notice"{{snd}}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 '''[[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]]''' that are '''[[WP:Independent sources|independent]] of the subject'''".

{{tlxtl|Notability}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{Notability|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, having [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] such as <nowiki>{{Notable}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Non-notable}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Nn}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Significance}}</nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:

{{Notability|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

(or some variation linking to one of the [[:Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines|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:

Line 197:

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 [[Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability|no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability]].

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|Advert}}}}

{{tlxtl|Advert}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{Advert|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, and having [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] such as <nowiki>{{Advertisement}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Advertising}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Ad}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Puff}}</nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:

{{Advert|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

flags the issue of an article that reads like an [[Advertising|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 [[buzzword]]s, be filled with [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock language]] and read like the website of the article's topic or a press release touting its virtues, rather than that of a [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]]-written encyclopedia article ''about'' the topic.

Line 206:

To address the issue, rewrite the article from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]{{snd}}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 [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|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 [[WP:STUB|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.

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|POV}}}}

{{tlxtl|POV}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{POV|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, and having [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] such as <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{POV dispute}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Neutrality}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Neutral}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Not neutral}}</nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:

{{POV|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

flags the issue of an article that has been identified as having a serious issue of balance, the lack of a [[WP:Neutral point of view|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.

Line 216:

# In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|Lead missing}}}}

{{tlxtl|Lead missing}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{Lead missing|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, and having [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] such as <nowiki>{{No lead}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Nointro}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{No lead section}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{Lead absent}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Intro needed}}</nowiki>, and displaying when reading as:

{{Lead missing|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

flags the issue of an article that fails to follow Wikipedia's standard [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout|article layout guidelines]] by introducing the reader to the topic in a [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|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 [[WP:N|notable]], and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

Line 223:

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.

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|Current}}}}

{{tlxtl|Current}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{Current|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, and displaying when reading as:

{{Current|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

(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 [[WP:RSBREAKING|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.

Line 231:

{{Hidden end}}

{{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: #eaecf0;|title={{tlxtl|Linkrot}}}}

{{tlxtl|Linkrot}}, typically placed by the code <code><nowiki>{{Linkrot|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>, and displaying when reading as:

{{Linkrot|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

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.