This template was considered for deletion on 20 May 2016. The result of the discussion was "keep".

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. 69.140.157.138 09:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Let's see. I copy from the instruction page:

This article is missing information about description. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page. (date=November 2015)

Debresser (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny. Okay, now let's try a solution:

This article is missing information about description. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page. (November 2015)

Debresser (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 should be posted on the article's talk page, not this talk page. -- numbermaniac (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

This template allows to specify the subject that is missing. ((Incomplete)) does not have that functionality. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Is this the right place to mention that the article is incomplete? My platoon was wiped out on 8/18/1968 in IV Corps. It was 3rd platoon, Co E, 4/47th Regiment, 2nd Brigade (Mobile Riverine Force), 9th Infantry Division. I have published references. How do I get this information included? {[[2601:480:4002:D476:B0F1:D3A3:336D:633F (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gaian2000: Sorry, this page is for discussing this particular template. I can't tell which article you are referring to, but seeing as how you appear to be relatively new (your account is 6 years old, but you don't have very many edits), I suggest you read Help:Editing, which will give you pointers on how to get started. Good luck, and happy editing! —howcheng {chat} 23:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I added the historical information and and missing information not previously existing in the article. Can the missing information and historical information tags be removed please. Oneclickwi (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template ((Missing information)). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. I assume you're talking about Air Cargo Carriers. If so, you should be able to directly edit the page to make the changes you want. —RP88 ^(talk) 20:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add ((subst:tfm|Incomplete)), per a nomination by Lojbanist ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: I speedy kept the nomination Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can we give named parameters for 1 and 2? i.e. article_type and info_missing? Daviddwd (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This is a bad idea, unless there is consensus to completely eliminate use of unnamed parameters in the template. If someone uses a named parameter instead of 1=, then 2= becomes 1= and the template does not function as the editor hopes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VisualEditor shows the "Info missing" and "date" fields, and fills it out like this: ((Missing information|2=hello|date=date=July 2020)), which looks like this:

Any ideas on how to change the template to fix this? —Enervation (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VisualEditor fills in the date field with ((subst:DATE)) by default, so that's why there's that duplicate date= in date=date=July 2020. —Enervation (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay I hopefully fixed the docs so VisualEditor won't have these issues. —Enervation (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add after the line starting with |date:

|small=(({small|))}

So a small version is available for sections. Artoria2e5 🌉 02:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see The Book of Tasty and Healthy Food. It appears from the accompanying article about the template that this template should substitute "article" into the output when "section" is not specified. It's not doing this. --LilHelpa (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The bold text seems unhelpful and is visually unappealing. Suggest replacing:

| issue = This ((#if:(({2|))}|(({1))}|article)) '''is missing information about (({2|(({about|(({on|(({reason|(({1<includeonly>|((error|Error: you must specify what information is missing.))</includeonly>))))))))))))))}'''.

With:

| issue = This ((#if:(({2|))}|(({1))}|article)) is missing information about (({2|(({about|(({on|(({reason|(({1<includeonly>|((error|Error: you must specify what information is missing.))</includeonly>))))))))))))))}.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor RandomCanadian:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit template-protected)) template. Bold typeface for emphasis is rarely appealing to the eye. It's usefulness is tied to that, which just means that it's unappealing nature draws the attention and focuses it on the need at hand. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: While drawing attention might be the purpose of the bold type, when the text is longer than a few words (say a sentence or two) I find it closer to the "distracting" end of the spectrum, especially once I'm done reading it (anyway, it is a maintenance template, and we don't want to have the stereotypical "this editor has found a problem with this article but can't be bothered to fix it"-type template where nothing gets done, but I guess that the template already draws attention due to colour scheme et al., so editors will notice it while readers who have no interest in it will not be distracted too much by it). I was asking because I tried to somehow circumvent it here, but obviously that didn't work out as planned. The more complicated solution would be for a parameter to control whether one wants it bold or not. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor RandomCanadian: okay, well let's try  shortening the eye-catcher to see if anybody objects? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace Articles to be expanded with ((#if:(({nocat|))}||Articles to be expanded)). JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor JsfasdF252:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]