Help talk:Maintenance template removal/Archive 2

Template removal after conclusion of an RFC
Criteria for removing the template include: 2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved. 4. When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue.

This text is potentially unclear when an RFC concludes as no consensus to change the existing text. On one hand there is no consensus that any problem exists, and it has been resolved that we address the issue by retaining the current text. On the other hand those who dislike the result of no consensus are still unhappy with the article text. There can be disagreement over adding/removing a maintenance template after an RFC concludes.

When RFC concludes, there is no maintenance work to be done. Maintenance templates should be removed if there's nothing to do. The template also contains a "call to action" for people to go to the talk page, however it is disruptive to call people in to continue arguing immediately after an RFC has concluded. Closers sometimes write "no consensus for the proposal" as a less confrontational equivalent of "consensus against the proposal". No-consensus for a requested change is very often the permanent endpoint of many disputes. We don't want to leave leave the template in place indefinitely.

It seems the sole purpose of leaving the template in place after an RFC concludes, by those who dislike the RFC result, is to direct the tag towards readers. The only purpose is as a badge of shame.

I suggest we more explicitly address this case. I suggest criteria #4 be revised as: When an RFC has concluded or there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. Alsee (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I propose to not change the text per WP:KISS. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Alsee I would like you clarify. A RFC can conclude in many ways. It would be inappropriate for this instruction page to (effectively) say "no matter how an RFC concludes, remove tags". This stuff is much better handled by... the people involved in the RFC. Or am I misunderstanding you? (I suspect you have a specific article in mind - perhaps you need to bring your grievance up there instead? What I mean by this is that we don't want to make site-wide decisions based on individual cases.) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed the language on tag removal was ambiguous because there was edit warring to add/remove the NPOV tag at White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War), after this RFC closure of no consensus for anything wrong with current text. The story in a nutshell: Countless Reliable Sources across the globe describe the White Helmets as a humanitarian rescue organisation. However Russia Times, along with a bunch of blogs and conspiracy theory sites, spin wild and contradictory stories that White Helmets are terrorists. Russia Times is a government controlled "news" organisation. Our article on it says RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters. At ReliableSourceNoticeboard, Russia Times has repeatedly been said to be not Reliable. According to countless Reliable Sources across the globe, Russia Times has been running a disinformation campaign to paint the White Helmets as terrorists. We keep getting bombarded with conspiracy-theory types arguing that all Reliable Sources are part of a "Western Media conspiracy" to suppress WP:The Truth. The only purpose for the NPOV tag is because conspiracy theorists want to direct it at readers, despite the fact that there are zero reliable sources disputing the current article text.
 * I made exactly one edit removing the tag, and so far no one has disputed it. But the ambiguous language here is bad. Even if the warring has ended at this article, we don't want warring on some other article when one side is unhappy with the result of an RFC. Alsee (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, won't touch a flamingly sensitive issue like that with a ten foot pole. Oppose any changes originating from hotspot subjects like that. CapnZapp (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. However I'd like to note that the tag was added three times by a single editor, and removed by three different editors. I'd also note that my rationale seems to have been successful in bringing the dispute to an end. There has been no conflict over the tag in the week since I posted this edit summary: Removing maintence template. An RFC on the issue just concluded. We have a result: The current text is to be kept. There is no maintenance work to do here, directing people to the talk page to continue debate immediately after an RFC has closed is disruptive, and tags are not permitted to be directed at readers to shame the article just because someone dislikes the result of the RFC. Alsee (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved. 4. When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. When an RFC has concluded or there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. Kenitkecik (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki comment
Here's a talk section for you to use for your grievances against my edits., User:Debresser. Enjoy. Now stop reverting my edits with no discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit you refer to is your addition, at the beginning and end of the header for this talkpage, of the following text:


 * If that is an issue you want to raise, then the way to do that is not by adding comments, but by opening a discussion on this talkpage. Which I hereby invite you to do. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You were the one that reverted me, with the edit summary 1. If you have this question, raise it on the talkpage, don't through comment on the page. 2. I don't understand the point. So first and foremost, don't revert what you don't understand. Instead ask.
 * That said, thank you for finally engaging in discussion. Now that you have "invited" me to answer the question, I will: I am not asking a question. I have no issues. Have you heard of rhetorical questions, Debresser?
 * What I did was simply to add a link into the talk archive for those wondering why the tbox was there. It is a non-standard box, and some editor that hasn't read the background (as explained in the talk archive) might be tempted to remove it. So I thought would be helpful to pre-emptively add a wiki editor comment to stave off any such attempts - or rather, add the ability to ask said editor "didn't you read the talk discussion linked to by the wiki comment before deleting?"
 * So, in all: I have no questions. Nothing is unclear to me. So I did not feel any particular need to discuss, so I didn't start any talk discussion. Adding wiki comments directed at our fellow editors isn't a new practice - I've seen it on plenty of articles. (So far you haven't contested the usage, but I felt I should clarify that I do know what I'm doing).
 * In the future, don't force others to start talk page discussions about subjects you don't understand, please. We can't be expected to spend time explaining everything we do. And no, asking in an edit summary isn't good enough - that places the burden of setting up the discussion (which is the only good option, since answering with an edit summary of one's own is **not** a good alternative) on someone else. You have a question, you start a talk discussion. Simple.
 * In fact, for the future I suggest you start to assume a little more good faith. Try politely asking why a particular edit in question was made. And asking while reverting is not polite, by the way. You might find you get much better results from your time here on Wikipedia :)
 * Now then. Now you hopefully know my intent for the wiki comment and if not, just ask further. Feel free to further improve it. Perhaps you want to rephrase to avoid the question? Just as long as you don't simply negate my intent I will probably appreciate your improvement.
 * Have a nice day, CapnZapp (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need for the comment. Talkpages often have all kind of boxes at their beginning. Accordingly, i removed it again.
 * Why should I assume good faith when an editor is being disruptive and insists on restoring his edit time after time, despite apparent opposition. This in clear disregard of the rules of the game as outlines in [WP:BRD]]? Debresser (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Debresser - reverting without more reason than "I don't understand it" is not enough, as you did the first time, setting off this cycle of reverts. You need to actually explain your reasons for opposing an edit. Assuming the other editor made a mistake is one thing, but you're not helping by simply reverting what you think are mistakes. You mistook my edit for a misplaced talk question, remember.
 * Moving on - I'm sure you agree "no need" is not reason enough for this to go away. Please be more specific. What harm does the comment do? I added it to help other editors. If you believe it doesn't then explain how so we can constructively move forward. CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there we disagree. I don't need to understand your point to know that you made it in the wrong place.
 * We have already constructively moved forwards and removed the comment. You have stated that you have no issue. So I think we're done here, no? Debresser (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggesting the negation of my work is constructive or that I don't have an issue with your reverts are bad faith arguments which I need you to stop doing right now. Understand that I was making no "point". I am adding a helpful editor pointer into the archive. I placed it right where I wanted it: where it is supposed to go. Your disagreement is not enough of an argument, especially since you show little sign of actually understanding my intentions here. Since you reverted my effort, I ask that you either explain how I can improve my contribution or come up with an acceptable suggestion yourself. CapnZapp (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand you very well, thank you. Do not make the mistake of confusing my disagreement for misunderstanding.
 * You comment in not needed. Not to mention that it is ambiguous (unclear). I therefore see no reason to make any suggestions whatsoever. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the first time you have even approached addressing the issue. You are noted for having wasted my time until now. You have been consistently unhelpful and generally negative, so if you would like to change tack and actually provide constructive feedback that would be much appreciated. Finally you have something to say about my actual contribution - you say it is "ambiguous (unclear)". In what way? What can I do to improve it?
 * PS. I have never claimed the comment was needed. I am claiming it is helpful. You not liking it is not reason enough for me to abandon my effort to be helpful. CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment is neither needed, nor helpful, nor is it customary to have comments for templates. I would seriously advise to simply drop the whole idea.
 * And please drop the personal attacks as well. I have not been negative: I have disagreed with you, and I have had to deal with an editor (you), who ignored good editing rules and tried to restore his comment some four or five times (!) before finally taking it to this talkpage. Sorry if you feel disagreeing with you is being negative, and sorry if you feel my assessment of you as disruptive is unjustified. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What's at stake here is you opposing the idea sufficiently to revert my addition. I do not agree my addition is unhelpful. I have never claimed it is needed. I have already stated editor comments do appear once in a while (see for instance the comments on this page.
 * Now, for the umpteenth time I ask that you seriously engage in constructive consensus-building. Argue why the quality of this talk page would drop by linking editors to the talk page discussion pertinent to the non-standard tbox. Either do that or I would seriously advise you to simply drop your unjustified opposition to what was meant to be a very quick and small edit.
 * Once you have dropped your stonewalling revert-only attitude, I would invite you to suggest improvements to how to best phrase said comment or otherwise implement my intent. CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have seen such an editor before, who insists I stop stonewalling and explain myself, all the while completely ignoring that I am not stonewalling rather disagreeing and that I have already explained my wo reasons to oppose your edit. Since there are no other editors here who feel in need of further explanations, or discussions for that matter, I draw the conclusion that it is you who has to bare the burden of proof, and has not done so. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. Burden of proof - what does that even mean? You say you have explained your reasons, but you really haven't. You're saying it is not "needed" as if helpful instructions must be necessary before they're added. So that's no reason. You're saying it is not helpful, but you aren't explaining yourself in a way that allows me to improve my addition. So that's no reason. Finally you said you didn't understand it. But your reaction haven't been to ask for help. Instead you revert what you don't understand. I still have no idea how to further my idea in a way that is mutually agreeable to both of us. So no Debresser, offering proof to someone who essentially is just saying they don't like it, is a fool's errand and I won't have it.
 * I made a small (tiny even) addition I thought helpful. I will be adding it once more. I trust you will leave it be now that I have emphatically stated you have no case and no arguments. Before you revert me, consider that I have given you every opportunity to justify this reversion. You have had many chances to actually demonstrate how the addition is hurting the page or its quality. You have had your chance of arguing in good faith, by being specific and by being constructive. You have squandered them all. CapnZapp (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have explained the reasons for my revert. You have failed to point out the necessity of the comment. A contested recent edit for which no support can be shown, must go. I ask you to stop being disruptive. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need to prove to you an edit is necessary. No wiki comment can ever be necessary. They're just comments. They have no impact on the page and aren't even seen by readers. I have no hopes of ever convincing you of the worth of this edit, since you have consistently shown zero interest in actually engaging in constructive dialog. CapnZapp (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: If there is a question of whether the text box at the top of this talk page is appropriate, it is reasonable to discuss the question here. There is no reason to pose the question in a wiki comment as it makes more sense to have the discussion on the talk page itself, since that is what the page is designed for. Wiki comments aren't good places to have discussions. Although it might be reasonable to pose a question in a wiki comment where it is meant rhetorically for some editor to consider in context, it should be expected that any dispute over the original text box or the wiki comment pertaining to the text box should be discussed here in the talk page. In short, don't edit war over this. Leave the wiki comment out of the text box simply because the appropriateness of the comment itself is disputed. The question should be discussed here. I'm not saying such as comment is necessarily wrong. It doesn't matter if it's wrong. Maybe there is not right or wrong here. The point is that disputes should be handled in the talk page. In my opinion, with respect, this debate is not very productive. I would suggest both editors here disengage. Delete the comment. Stop the discussion. Move on to something else that's more important. I'm not being snarky. With all sincerity, I don't believe this discussion is worth continuing - I would just part as, well, fellow wiki editors, and move on. That's the best advice I can give you. (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I find your comments (first and second) clear and helpful, and am happy to note that they coincide with my take on this issue. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sports Note
Also When It's Offical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.60.69.15 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Dedicated section for remark
Hi, I am receiving this message while trying to update Jocelyn pook's wikipedia page, "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. Find sources: "Jocelyn Pook" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October " I have entered several different citaions from respectful sources, could you please let me know what to do next? Thanks Elifnurk (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)elifnurk

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020
I wish to add the updated logo for ROA (d/b/a Reserve Organization of America), and would like to make the d/b/a searchable so Wiki viewers can find our ROA page. Hplimack (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Maintenance template removal. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Untitled section
Maintenance template not needed - who sees a reason for it and where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.92.100.120 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020
Remove template message box in below page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Tacopina 2604:2000:1303:560F:DC79:51F4:1AC1:158B (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Maintenance template removal. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

About removal of the tag
I had translated poems and epic, so collected all relevant information. All informations are authentic, so this tag may be removed. Dinesh Kumar Mali (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Which article? Which tag precisely? Debresser (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020
2403:6200:8830:FD48:BCBF:B170:27C5:19C3 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
AaS2X5 2601:8C0:C000:8700:E426:D917:E68C:36F (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Should the use of the 'Undisclosed paid' template be explained on article talk pages?
Please contribute to the discussion at Template talk:Undisclosed paid. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Main page photo
Hi All, please can you advise me how the photo on the main page can come up in Google searches,rather than the photo of the leisure centre?

Thank you Sutton12 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, don't know the answer, . I surmise that you are wanting to manipulate the search results to show your own image of a half-timbered pub, File:Low Street Sutton in Ashfield.jpg? I'm guessing that you mean the current infobox image taken by yourself is not showing in a Google search as a snapshot of the Wikipedia article within a frame on right side of the search results; I can only surmise this is an internal function of the Google system which may rotate the images periodically. Presently it's showing File:Sutton-in-Ashfield - Lammas Leisure Centre.jpg taken by Dave Bevis. Other searches do likewise - rotate the lead image - can't remember if it's both Facebook Marketplace and/or Gumtree, although this rotation may only be on saved items.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020
Let others edit so people can add as much information as they know and more people know more.EYVALLAH Ertugrulhalime (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 17:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

unclear: what to do
Hi,

just a thought: every now and then, people add a maintenance template on a page, but it is unclear what they are referring to (this recently happened to me with "citation style"). It may be helpful to add a suggestion on this help page what to do in such a case. I am experienced enough to go to the editors talkpage and ask them: but newer editors may not have this inclination. This page is being referred to for guidance, so it makes sense to me to describe it here. effeietsanders 23:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi effeiets. I must confess I don't understand your concern. I drafted this help page in great part specifically to provide advice describing "what to do" when "people add a maintenance template on a page" and "it is unclear what they are referring to". Did you read the section on addressing the flagged problem, the section on researching the tagged issue section and the section headlined Still need help? I even included a section on specific template guidance, going into much more detail about what to do when finding a page tagged with some of the more common maintenance templates—there is only so much room on the page for this, so it cannot cover every maintenance template one might come across. If you have read all of the linked parts of the page and your question is not answered, can you try to explain what more could be included to help address your concern? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your follow-up. I'll try to walk you through my experience. Note that I'm fairly experienced; an actual newcomer may have a much harder time. The scenario is that I created a page, or care about a page. Someone added a template at the top of that page, without being overly specific. For example, it may state that it needs more citations. Or that the style is not to their liking. But without specificity, that's not very instructive. So they are sent to this help page. When I start reading this page, everything suggests to me that I should already know what the problem is that I have to address. When I go to "Addressing the flagged problem" (I'm assuming the user is of good faith, and actually wants to fix it), I see that I should basically read the policies. That's not very helpful, because those are gigantic often, and don't indicate specifically what is wrong. It then ends with " Whatever maintenance tag brought you to this help page should likewise contain relevant explanatory links addressed to whatever its issue is." (which is not the case in our scenario". Then it spends a lot of time talking about removal, which is not particularly relevant. So I stop reading. The specific guidances are nice, but are folded by default, and hard to spot for our newcomer (they need to know the template name - which they won't know if they use visual editor).
 * The template specific descriptions are actually rather helpful when described, except that they feel a bit outdated (heavily relying on source editing rather than visual editor - in the case of citations not even acknowledging that visual editor exists), but that is besides the point. Some improvements could include simple step-by-step approaches, rather than a lot of references to policies and other more extensive help pages. It also feels to focus a bit too much on nuance and explaining the expert view (I don't quite understand how It should not be used for articles with no sources at all ( should be used instead), nor for articles without inline citations but which contain some sources ( should be used instead), nor for article on living persons ( should be used instead). This template no longer applies once an article has been made fairly well sourced. would help me if I get a 'refimprove' on my article, for example). In my case, the template was not listed, but I can see that you can't cater to each and every template with this level of detail.
 * But the unfortunately likely problem "I get this general policy notification, but don't know why this would be a problem on my article - looks fine to me" is not solved. All that is then left, is the 'go to these super general places ask random strangers for help' which sounds very scary.
 * After reading this page again, I realize that there are quite a few nuggets in here. My suggestions for improvement would be:
 * Update to visual editor, or at least acknowledge both.
 * Instead of folding the descriptions, show the templates, and bring people to a more specific subpage. Once you know they care about 'refimprove', that is all they need to see.
 * Cut down on the nuance, and leave that for other pages. Make it more actionable and focused on your target audience: people who need help fixing their template. I personally am a big fan of step-by-step approaches.
 * Maybe rename the page and relay the focus a bit from 'how to remove a template' to 'how to address this issue that someone flagged'. Or split it?
 * Make the 'more help needed' more specific. Give them one first option. If that doesn't work, they can try other things. This choice between options that I don't really know is terrifying after reading so much help-page. My intuition would be to first see if they can contact the person who added the template. That person should probably know what is needed, but may not always respond. But you're more informed to what the best recommendation would be on enwiki (e.g. maybe you're afraid they'll bite the newcomer?).
 * Finally, I would put a 5-line executive summary on top. That makes sure that people don't have to struggle through the whole page.
 * I know that you put in a lot of effort, and that some parts are still there. My concern is less about my specific problem, but about how we can help more people work through their problems. I love the idea of this help page trying to actually guide people through the problem - I just believe it could be more effective. Sorry for the long writing, I hope it makes more sense this way. effeietsanders 07:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Pls help me. Im bluer Genrelessongs (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Criterion (4)'s timing – pre-implementation removal – is better thought
This help page has become high traffic and past changes to the removal criterion themselves have seemingly only been done after discussion and consensus here, so I decided to write this talk page section and not just make the change – though I do think it is obviously problematic in hindsight. We should not be advising removal "[w]hen there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue", i.e., advising removal before requiring implementation of the solution the talk page discusses. First of all, because I have seen many template removals (and because I think it defies common sense), I very much doubt many people are actually removing article maintenance templates at the stage when some solution has been only talked about. Accordingly, this criterion is in seeming conflict with the silent consensus of what is actually done in normal practice by most users. (When I was drafting this help page, I was in large part trying to capture relevant aspects of our actual practice as to maintenance templates). Second, except in rare case, for any given article the number of people viewing the talk page is some miniscule percentage of those reading the article, and the point of maintenance templates is just as much to inform readers, as to get action on the flagged issue (e.g., an unreferenced template serves the very important role of telling the reader, in effect, "Wikipedia operates on reliable sourcing, which is tied to reliability of content; because this article lacks it, on average you should take the encyclopedic reliability of the current content with a grain of salt...". So, if we remove but don't implement contemporaneously, we lose that informing-the-reader function.  Third, a stalled implementation of talk page consensus becomes more likely to be continuing under the current criterion. That is, once some talk page consensus is "buried" on the talk page, but not implemented—because the template's been removed, as condoned under the current criterion's wording—the chances of having another user see the talk page consensus, so that it gets implement, goes down precipitously. Fourth, and most obvious of all, the most direct response we hope for is that someone seeing a maintenance template reads it and follows the advice, either directly or after reading this page, and makes the good edits that address the template's basis. What a shame if someone says "ooh, the talk page has consensus about what to do, and so just removes the template. Then, someone who might otherwise otherwise have seen the template and acted, doesn't (and then five years go by with un-implemented consensus sitting on the talk page [or in its archives]). That's what the current language invites. I propose replacement (also slightly modifying the current last sentence for flow) with:
 * 4. When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere), either: i) as to how to address the flagged issue, and you are reasonably implementing those changes, or ii) that the flagged issue has already been adequately addressed. (In either case, 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);"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fuhghettaboutit I'm not sure I understand your concern here. Criteria #2 of "When not to remove" clearly states The issue has not yet been resolved. Might it be that you're worried about the theoretical case where somebody removes the template after consensus but before implementation, and thus risks leaving the article in an "uncleaned" state with no cleanup tag? Because in practice, you'd simply revert that edit and tell them not to be silly. Do note: I might be misinterpreting you here. Anyway, my take is that #4 is for cases that doesn't fall under #1 or #2 (not that I can come up with any). Tell you what, perhaps the better solution is to ask ourselves which practical cases for which #4 does apply. If we can identify some, it will likely help guide us to a good phrasing. And if we can't - well, then maybe deleting #4 is the right way to go. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was in contradiction with the language of when not to remove No 2. It functions perfectly now, with the clarified language. I'm not sure how I can say it any more clearly than I have above. The prior language, even if it was unintended, parsed as allowing (and endorsing) removal of a template at the time stage when the talk page had a proposed fix to address a maintenance template's basis, but that had not yet been implemented. Okay let me provide an example.
 * An article has a tag on it. User:NewUser opens a discussion on the talk page:
 * → "These five sources verify all the existing content; I don't understand citation markup, so someone please add them: Source 1 (for ¶1); source 2 (for ¶2)..."
 * User:Experienced ambles by:
 * → "Wow these sources take care of the refimprove issue really well. Good job. User:NewUser! I'll add these when I get around to it.
 * "Then User:3, User:4 and User:5 all swing by and each add various comments to the effect:
 * →"Yep, that'll take care of it really well!"
 * Two months later, when nothing has been done (maybe User:Experienced forgot, or has disappeared from Wikipedia, or still intends to do it some time), User:IDon'tLikeTags comes calling and sees the discussion on talk page, and then, through the link in the refimprove template, comes to this project page. He or she reads the when to remove section (and neither reads the when not to remove section, nor if they did, would they be sure to recognize any implicit contradiction between the two sections). So they read that it's okay to remove:
 * "When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue"
 * With that instruction in their mind, since they just read a discussion on the talk page fairly containing consensus as to "how to address the flagged issue", which is all that's needed under the instruction for removal to be warranted, they go right ahead and remove the refimprove template. Bad result. As I said the "timing issue" of this language was probably unintended but it is what this language endorsed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, okay. Can I just add that I asked Might it be that you're worried about the theoretical case where somebody removes the template after consensus but before implementation, and thus risks leaving the article in an "uncleaned" state with no cleanup tag? and it seems a simpler answer would be "yes" :) CapnZapp (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that we're on the same page can I again interest you in giving your opinion on Tell you what, perhaps the better solution is to ask ourselves which practical cases for which #4 does apply. If we can identify some, it will likely help guide us to a good phrasing. And if we can't - well, then maybe deleting #4 is the right way to go? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! But when someone expresses mystification after a post of mine as to what I mean, even if they seem to summarize it correctly, my takeaway is that they didn't fully understand what I meant/I wasn't clear enough. Sorry for overexplaining:-) (You certainly sounded dubious about what the issue was [when I thought I was so sparkingly clear]: "I'm not sure I understand your concern here.... Might it be that you're worried about...") Anyway, yeah we're on the same page! But now I don't get you. The language I've changed it to I thought about carefully, and as far as can tell, fully addresses the issue. It does what I think was actually intended by the original language but gets rid of the problem I identified entirely – and adds clarity to the criteria. There's (now) a nice meshing affect, insofar as don't remove No. 2 and this one, as modified, are now cross-reinforcing on the same sentiment, instead of contradictory. So, why remove entirely? / what's your criticism of the implemented change?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel this might be a case of not seeing the forest for all the trees. Yes, you have plugged the hole. But why does #4 exist in the first place? Instead of complexifying this criteria I'm just taking a step back: "waitaminute - why not simply delete the whole of #4?" Can you come up with a reason why #4 was created... is what I'm asking. Anyhoo... At the very least, we should be able to agree that 4.i and 4.ii deserves to be two separate points. (I must confess I can't understand why 4.ii exists at all, since it appears to be be identical to #1, but I'm not you). Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Please can this message be removed?
As above Sutton12 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC) , please can you explain clearly what you are asking for? Deb (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This information is wrong please remove it Syedfani4530 (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021
On the East Lansing Mayors article there are a number of warnings about the reference to Mark Meadows that were entered in September 2019, during his reelection campaign and are either misleading or non-sensical. They should be removed and should not have been permitted to be entered. The person who entered them did so for political purposes and should be prohibited from editing any article.73.145.149.79 (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC) 73.145.149.79 (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Maintenance template removal. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.  Seagull123  Φ  15:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What about adding a “maintenance template message”?
Does someone know when and how to add a “maintenance template message” to an article? KevinML (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021
The information on this page is incorrect and misleading. Wikipedia will not accept changes.

74.92.25.225 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It isn't clear what change you are requesting. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources / Links
Hi, I noticed that "Find sources: "Maintenance template removal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" contains mainly links using Google as search engine. I'm just curious. Is this so? Who or which process defines it, decides it? I wonder if the links could point to a general "search register" allowing people to decide which search engine to use or continue searching with. I also understand that Google seems to be donating to Wikipedia, so there might be a potential COI. Once again, just curious. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . While this is a perfectly valid subject for discussion, this is not really the right page for it. The display of maintenance templates blend a variety of information and links in proximity to serve different purposes. The parenthetical link to this project page – addressing the when, how and why of template removal – bears little relationship with the separate separate set of links addressing finding sources. Anyway, the reason for the links to Google has nothing to do with any financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation. Effectively, everything here is added by volunteers from all over the world and not by Wikimedia employees. I personally have misgivings about the heavy use of Google too. For me of particular concern is my feelings about Google's incredibly invasive tracking and privacy violating practices. But the rub on this issue seems to be the pragmatics of the issue. We provide these links because sourcing, and in particular, the right types of sources, with the right depth of treatment, is the be-all, end-all of article writing – it is what all our information and subject inclusion policies and guidelines converge on. Since that is the case, it is very important that users be directed to the best, easiest ... (add about five others superlative "est" words to that list) facilities for finding sources, and in databases that tend to concentrate reliable sources. Like it or not, Google seems to be the premiere search engine, and with no other providing the same niche search facilities (for books, scholarly material, newspapers, etc.), of equivalent quality and breadth.  At least, that's what I would suggest is the correct focus on this topic: if the number one concern—so much more important than anything like being "democratic" with our links—is providing the best links to serve our users in their paramount task of proper sourcing in article writing, are there any alternatives that do as a good a job? I don't know of any. Do you?  Now that I think about it, though, it occurs to me that I would actually support removing the link to Google's regular web search. Everyone with a pulse knows Google; it is what most people default to when searching already. Since that is the case, the link to it will help only some tiny minority of people who don't know what a search engine is, while the lack of that link probably will assist a fair number of people – I would think many more than the minority living under rocks, who don't know what a regular search is –  by tending to funnel them to the niche searches of books, scholar, etc. which so often is exactly the prompt users need to learn about the existence of such niche types of searches, for finding good sources. Also adding a link to WP:FENS might be in order – though since I created that page, I suppose I have a "COI" in suggesting it). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates
Should one delete multiple finances of the same template, if they are dated differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl (talk • contribs) 16:11, April 24, 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I haven't seen that before. Can you provide a link to a page where you found this? Anyway, "yes", if they really are exact duplicates, but for the date, remove them. While the date added does provide some information on its own, I don't see anything about that close to compelling enough to warrant the duplication. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank ypi, I'll try and find the page I was referencing.
 * (finances = instances (autocorrect)) &#8213; Qwerfjkl &#124;&#9993;  15:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021
2405:201:4024:F8B0:D49E:3A91:54A4:C708 (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sir, It has been established that the International Delphic Council, Germany, and International Delphic Committee, Russia are misrepresenting themselves as the reviver of ancient Delphic Games, when in fact, no Delphic Games were mentioned in ancient Greek history, and only Pythian Games existed and were occasionally referred to as Delphic festivals and Games of Delphi. In 1912, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reintroduced the Artistic events in Olympics a Pythian Games, until the Pythian Games were officially discontinued in 1954.

It is brought to your notice that the name of ‘Delphic Games’, a synonym to “Pythian Games’ is still questionable as there is no specific mention of events in the name of “Delphic Games” in the history of Delphi or Pythian Games and before the year of 1994. Therefore, Delphic Games can not be a synonym to ‘Pythian Games’ and the International Delphic Council, Germany, and International Delphic Committee, Russia can not be reviver of these games.

This is for Your information and necessary action, please.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Maintenance template removal. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Complaint
I created an article, Mihlali ndamase now it says that my article has multiple problems I would like to remove that. Likho.x (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous or misleading term only?
The whole policy, to remove original research, is ridiculous. Following that rule, we must remove ALL informations, e.g. in the genetics paragraphs, and many, many more and wikipedia will shrunk to estimated 20 per cent. The point is that the original research has to be correctly cited, starting with the name of the lead author, followed by the year, and linking to the full entries in the ref chapter.HJJHolm (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * see WP:NOR. Here, no original research does not mean no citing published scientific research. Rather, it means a Wikipedia contributor adding information based on their personal knowledge or research without citing a reliable source. CharredShorthand (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You for the clarification which, of course, is quite correct. You must, however, admit that the pure text "original research" simply expresses anything else than what is really meant and is very misleading. Thus, "ridiculous" hits at that what is misunderstood, caused by the chosen words. I very much suggest to find a better and clearer description! Thank You.HJJHolm (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)