راهنما:حذف الگوی نگهداری

بسیاری از صفحات ویکی‌پدیا الگوهای نگهداری نشان می‌دهد که مشکلات موضوعی یا محتوایی همان صفحه را نشان می‌دهد. شما احتمالاً با کلیک روی پیوندی در یک الگوی نگهداری به اینجا رسیدید، منظور «چگونگی و زمان حذف پیام این الگو» است.

الگوهای نگهداری توسط داوطلبان افزوده و حذف می‌شوند. این صفحهٔ راهنما فرایند بررسی و حذف چنین الگوهایی را شرح می‌دهد.

نگاه کلی

الگوهای نگهداری (یا «برچسب‌ها») هرگز به‌صورت خودکار حذف نمی‌شوند. اگر مشکلی را که در الگوهای نگهداری توضیح داده شده‌است را رفع کردید، الگو در مقاله تا زمانی که شما یا دیگری حذف کند باقی می‌ماند. نحوهٔ حذف الگو به سادگی ویرایش مقاله با کلیک روی دکمهٔ ویرایش و برداشتن الگو از محتوا است. به یاد داشته باشید حتماً خلاصه ویرایش شفافی بنویسید.

ویکی‌پدیا با تلاش داوطلبینی چون شما فعال است، ویرایش‌های جسورانه کنید و دانشنامه را توسعه دهید. رفع‌کردن مشکلات و پس از آن حذف الگوهای نگهداری به اندازهٔ توسعهٔ دانشنامه مهم است.

رفع‌کردن مشکل

We don't know which maintenance tag brought you to this page, and thus what specific problem needs attention. However, every maintenance template contains links to help pages, policies, guidelines or other relevant pages that provide information on the problem the template was placed to flag. You will also find guidance on some of the more common templates below.

Many common templates address problems with article citations and references, or their lack—because reliable sourcing is the lifeblood of Wikipedia articles and at the core of all of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, such as notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. But a host of other issues may be flagged, including tone and style of writing, structure and formatting, lack of links to other articles or from other articles to the article at issue, compliance with Wikipedia's manual of style and the lack of a lead section.

Making sure that the issue has been fixed is the condition you need to fulfill before removing the template. That does require some effort on your part—to understand both the problem and how to solve it.

یک نمونه

If the issue flagged by the maintenance template is that the article contains no references, then the template used might be {{بدون منبع}} – typically placed by the code you would see when wikitext (source) editing: {{بدون منبع|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}.

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

Example:

This template contains a number of links, indicated by the words and phrases in blue. Three of these links are to pages that, when explored, provide context and resources for you to understand why the template was placed on the page, and how to address the issue of the article being بدون منبع:

• "cite", which links to the content guideline ویکی‌پدیا:شیوه ارجاع به منابع;
• "sources", which links to the policy ویکی‌پدیا:تأییدپذیری; and
• "adding citations to reliable sources", which links to a help page providing a how-to guide to the basics of citing references.

Whatever maintenance tag brought you to this help page should likewise contain relevant explanatory links addressed to whatever its issue is. Read these explanatory and contextual pages to learn about the problem and what it is you need to do to take care of it. Again, some of the more common maintenance templates seen are addressed in the specific template guidance section below.

چه زمانی حذف کنیم

الگوهای نگهداری قرار نیست به‌طور دائمی در مقالات باشند. هر کاربری بدون تعارض منافع می‌تواند الگوی نگهداری در هرکدام از شرایط زیر حذف کند:

1. زمانی که مشکل رفع شده‌است.
2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);
3. If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error. Discussing the matter with the original placer of the template is advised, though if the user is no longer active this becomes moot. In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page;
4. When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. (It is best to note the location of the consensus in the edit summary accompanying your removal, ideally with a link to the location);
5. When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant, such as a {{Current}} template appearing in an article that no longer documents a current event;
6. If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Some neutrality-related templates, such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;
7. There is currently no consensus for age-related removal of maintenance templates, with the exception of POV-related templates (as addressed immediately above). In this regard, some templates relate to matters that are binary and unambiguous—the problem the maintenance template flags is plainly required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and therefore persists until addressed (e.g. , the lack of any citations). As with the POV exception, age alone may be relevant where a lack of edits or of discussion addressed to the issue may be interpreted as a form of "silent consensus", that the issue isn't worth fixing. This invariably involves matters implicating an exercise of judgement and subjective elements.
8. Lastly, there are times when a person attempting to address a maintenance template that flags some fundamental matter may find that the issue cannot actually be addressed. For example, if an article is flagged as lacking citations to reliable, secondary sources, written by third-parties to the topic, and a user seeing the maintenance templates discovers that such sources appear not to exist, that usually means the article should be deleted. In such cases, it is not so much that the template does not belong and should be removed, but rather that flagging the page for maintenance will never address the more critical issue that the page itself does not belong on Wikipedia at all.

چه زمانی حذف نکنیم

شما نباید الگوی نگهداری را اگر حتی یکی از موارد زیر وجود دارد حذف کنید:

1. مشکل هنوز برطرف نشده‌است.
2. اقدامی در دست انجام یا بحثی مرتبط با مشکل الگو در جریان است (به استثنای الگوهای مرتبط با طرفداری).
3. مشکلاتی که الگو مشخص کرده‌است را درک نکردید.
4. برای ویرایش مقاله دستمزد دریافت کردید یا دیگر تعارض منافع.

حذف

Have you carefully read the help pages and have thoroughly fixed the problem? Or have you made a considered decision that the template is not, or is no longer, applicable? Great! Now, to remove the maintenance template:

1. Either click on "edit" or "edit source" at the top of the page, or if the maintenance template is not at the top but somewhere in the body of the article, you might instead use a section edit link;
2. If you are editing wikitext ("source" editing): Delete the template code. The template code you see in this edit mode will usually be in the following form, as in the example above: {{Name of template|date=Month Year}}. If you are editing using VisualEditor: Click on the template (tag), which will then turn blue. Press the "Delete" key on the template box dialogue which will appear.
3. Leave a descriptive edit summary, e.g. , "Removed [insert the name of template] because I have fixed the issue."
4. Click Save changes.

همه‌اش همین بود! ممنونیم.

تعویض الگو

Problems flagged by some templates may imply secondary problems that will still exist after you take care of the main issue. In such cases, it may be more appropriate to switch the template to another applicable one following your edits, rather than just removing it. The reasoning behind the change in templates should be addressed in the edit summary.

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

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

When a flagged issue has been addressed in parts of an article, but remains in discrete sections, clarity may be served by replacing the template with a section variant, or by use of inline cleanup tags, if such versions of the template exist.

In some cases, it may be helpful to request review of a maintenance template's removal or proposed removal with the editor who initially added it to the article at issue.

Specific template guidance

This section provides guidance on how to address some of the more common specific templates that may have brought you to this help page. More detailed information about the templates can be found by following the links to the templates themselves.

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

{{مشکلات متعدد}} 

Some articles will be flagged for multiple discrete problems using a single template: {{مشکلات متعدد}}. If you take care of one or more problems that it flags but not all, do not remove the template entirely but just those parameters in it that you have fixed. The example below shows three different issues flagged by this template:

{{مشکلات متعدد|
{{یتیم|date=January 2008}}
{{طرفداری|date=June 2009}}
{{یک منبع|date=March 2011}}
}}

If you address the "orphaning" issue, but not the other two, remove just the line that flagged the orphan issue and leave the others intact. Thus, your removal would leave the template in this state.

{{مشکلات متعدد|
{{طرفداری|date=June 2009}}
{{یک منبع|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.

{{بدون منبع}} 

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 سرشناسی 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.

{{بدون منبع}}, typically placed by the code {{بدون منبع|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, having redirects such as {{بدون منبع}}, {{بدون منبع}}, {{بدون منبع}}, {{بدون منبع}}, and {{بدون منبع}}, 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 راهنما:مقدمه‌ای بر ارجاع/۱, and then seeing ویکی‌پدیا:شیوه ارجاع به منابع for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides and tutorials. A visual guide to placing inline citations through <ref>...</ref> tags may also help, and appears below.

Visual inline citation guide 

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code {{پانویس|۲}} or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{پانویس|colwidth=30em}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref> Multiple<ref name="multiple">Citation text3.</ref>citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" /> == منابع == {{پانویس}}	Two separate citations. Multiple citation use. References_________________
Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

As noted higher on this page, unless you thoroughly source a page in response to this template, it may more appropriate to switch this template with a more specific one rather than simply removing it. Depending on the type, quality, depth and manner of sourcing added to fix the issue, you might replace it with {{بهبود منبع}}, {{بدون پانویس}}, {{منابع اولیه}} or a host of others listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.

{{بهبود منبع}} 

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.

{{بهبود منبع}}, typically placed by the code {{بهبود منبع|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, having redirects such as {{بهبود منبع}}, {{بهبود منبع}}, {{بهبود منبع}} and {{بهبود منبع}}, 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 ({{بدون منبع}} should be used instead), nor for articles without inline citations but which contain some sources ({{بدون پانویس}} 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.

{{بدون پانویس}} 

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 سرشناسی 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.

{{بدون پانویس}}, typically placed by the code {{بدون پانویس|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, and having redirects such as {{بدون پانویس}}, {{بدون پانویس}}, {{بدون پانویس}} and {{بدون پانویس}}, 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 راهنما:مقدمه‌ای بر ارجاع/۱, and then seeing ویکی‌پدیا:شیوه ارجاع به منابع for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides and tutorials. A visual guide to placing inline citations through <ref>...</ref> tags may also help, and appears below.

Visual inline citation guide 

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code {{پانویس}} or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{پانویس|colwidth=30em}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref> Multiple<ref name="multiple">Citation text3.</ref>citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" /> == منابع == {{پانویس}}	Two separate citations. Multiple citation use. References_________________
Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

{{منابع اولیه}} 

{{منابع اولیه}}, typically placed by the code {{منابع اولیه|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, having among other redirects {{منابع اولیه}}, 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, منبع دست سومs. 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 سرشناسی.

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 ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست منبع. 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.

{{سرشناسی}} 

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a specific type of reference work properly containing articles on topics of knowledge. Wikipedia employs the concept of سرشناسی 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".

{{سرشناسی}}, typically placed by the code {{سرشناسی|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, having redirects such as {{سرشناسی}}, {{سرشناسی}}, {{سرشناسی}} and {{سرشناسی}}, 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 ویکی‌پدیا:منابع معتبر.
• 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.

{{تبلیغات}} 

{{تبلیغات}}, typically placed by the code {{تبلیغات|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, and having redirects such as {{تبلیغات}}, {{تبلیغات}}, {{تبلیغات}} and {{تبلیغات}}, 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 واژه باب روزs, 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.

{{طرفداری}} 

{{طرفداری}}, typically placed by the code {{طرفداری|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, and having redirects such as {{طرفداری}}, {{طرفداری}}, {{طرفداری}}, {{طرفداری}} and {{طرفداری}}, 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 منبع دست دوم. 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.

{{فاقد بخش آغازین}} 

{{فاقد بخش آغازین}}, typically placed by the code {{فاقد بخش آغازین|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, and having redirects such as {{فاقد بخش آغازین}}, {{فاقد بخش آغازین}}, {{فاقد بخش آغازین}}, {{فاقد بخش آغازین}} and {{فاقد بخش آغازین}}, 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.

{{رویداد روز}} 

{{رویداد روز}}, typically placed by the code {{رویداد روز|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, 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.

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 {{رویداد روز}} template, with no informational consequence).

{{نشانی‌های وب عریان}} 

{{نشانی‌های وب عریان}}, typically placed by the code {{نشانی‌های وب عریان|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, and displaying when reading as:

Researching the tagged issue

As noted previously, most templates contain links to guidance pages. Additionally, many templates have documentation that provides more information about the template's flagged issue, which is displayed when you visit the template page itself.

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

For example, if you found this in the Edit interface, {{بدون منبع|date=سپتامبر ۲۰۱۹}}, then you would visit the template itself by searching for الگو:بدون منبع. The accompanying documentation for all maintenance templates, if it exists, can be located in this way.

هنوز به کمک نیاز دارید؟

If you've read through this page and are still confused about what needs to be done to fix an issue on a page and remove a maintenance template, try asking at the Teahouse, a page designed for new users to ask questions. Alternatively, you could try the more general Help desk, or seek live assistance at the IRC channel: #wikipedia-en-help.

جستارهای وابسته

• ویکی‌پدیا:فهرست الگوهای پیامی
• راهنما:الگو