ความช่วยเหลือ:การลบแม่แบบการบำรุงรักษา

บทความบางส่วนจะถูกทำเครื่องหมายสำหรับปัญหาต่อเนื่องหลายเครื่องโดยใช้แม่แบบเดียว: หากคุณดูแลปัญหาอย่างน้อยหนึ่งปัญหาที่ตั้งค่าสถานะแต่ไม่ใช่ทั้งหมดอย่าลบเทมเพลตทั้งหมด แต่ให้เฉพาะพารามิเตอร์ที่คุณแก้ไขในนั้น ตัวอย่างด้านล่างแสดงปัญหาที่แตกต่างกันสามประการที่เทมเพลตนี้กำหนด: {{Multiple issues}}

{{หลายประเด็น|
{{เด็กกำพร้า|วันที่=มกราคม 2008}}
{{POV|date=มิถุนายน 2552}}
{{หนึ่งแหล่ง|วันที่=มีนาคม 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.

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 in order 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=September 2021}}, 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.

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.

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 in order 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=September 2021}}, 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 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 judgement 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.

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 in order 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=September 2021}}, 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 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.

{{Primary sources}}, typically placed by the code {{Primary sources|date=September 2021}}, 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.

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=September 2021}}, 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 a number of 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 actually 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}}, typically placed by the code {{Advert|date=September 2021}}, 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. Though not always the case, a common denominator in promotional articles is the creator having some personal involvement with the topic. Please note the existence of {{Uw-paid1}} and higher levels if the creator appears to be financially compensated for their writings here. Note that 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 as to 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 there is little alternative but to strip out all content that is not reliably sourced, leaving it in a stub state. The ideal, of course, is to explore the existence of sourcing for the topic and build from the ground up.

{{POV}}, typically placed by the code {{POV|date=September 2021}}, 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 is one that 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}}, typically placed by the code {{Lead missing|date=September 2021}}, 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}}, typically placed by the code {{Current|date=September 2021}}, 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 to breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies, and 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}}, typically placed by the code {{Linkrot|date=September 2021}}, 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 web site 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.