Template talk:Missing information

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


IMHO this template should categorize an article under "NPOV disputes," not "accuracy disputes." I would think that if there is an actual dispute as to whether information should be included or excluded, most likely the dispute relates to a concern regarding POV. If uncontroversial information were missing from an article, one would use a cleanup-type template or an expansion-request template instead of this template. 09:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Not every case of missing information is a neutrality dispute. Some articles just aren't done! If the person who places the template thinks its a neutrality issue, they will probably use the {{NPOV}} template. --⟳ausa کui × 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't categorize under either NPOV nor Accuracy disputes. Neither is accurate, if anything it should be something like Category:Articles with missing information or Category:Articles needing specific expansion. -- œ 07:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
As per the previous comment, the categorisation is just plainly wrong. Missing information doesn't mean that there is an accuracy dispute, it means there is missing information. Hence to avoid creating a new specific cat for it, I think Category:Articles to be expanded is the most obvious choice. The-Pope (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that Category:Articles to be expanded is a good choice. Thanks to the pope!. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Need parameter for ref to use[edit]

A longstanding issue with wp:EL's avoid list is the instruction to avoid links to sites containing nothing beyond "what the article would contain if it became a featured article". The intent there is that such links should be converted to references and used to develop the article text, rather than buried in the EL section. It would seem that including such a link as an explicit parameter to this template would further that end. Views? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

date={{subst:DATE}} is incorrect[edit]

I used the example syntax, but it produced duplicate date= text, which was then fixed by AnomieBOT. How should the example be revised?

(Also, there seems to be no way for the template to link to a specific talkpage section, but I'll leave that for later.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. I copy from the instruction page: Debresser (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Funny. Okay, now let's try a solution: Debresser (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
But that will not add a date parameter, so I did it the way we do it on all other maintenance template documentation pages. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Co-authors Missing From Bibliography[edit]

There are 8 more co-authors for Trump's books not listed, according to

<ref>< WorldCat (First Search): OCLC Catalog of Books and Other Materials in Libraries World Wide (You can also get this database through your library.

The Art of the Deal was co-written by Tony Schwartz; Surviving at the Top was co-written by Charles Leerhsen, as was The Art of Survival. How to Get Rich was co-written by Meredith McIver (as were 4 more of his books).:Trump: Think Like a Billionaire; Trump: 101 the Key to Success; Trump: Never Give Up; and Think Like a Champion.

(Sorry if I posted this wrong; I've never tried it before)


This template is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 20#Template:Missing information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Compared to Incomplete[edit]

Isn't this template pretty much redundant to {{incomplete}}? howcheng {chat} 05:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This template allows to specify the subject that is missing. {{Incomplete}} does not have that functionality. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
OK I see. {{Incomplete}} lets you put in the reason but it doesn't show it. It seems like we should be able to merge the two, though, right? howcheng {chat} 19:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. You could nominate them for a merge at WP:TFD, and let's see if other editors perhaps see reason not to merge them. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)