Template talk:In-universe

Rename

Maybe we should rename this template, since there are many articles that do an "ok" job at separating fiction and fact but still need to follow other guidelines from WP:WAF. Not that it's a totally different issue, but it would make it clear to not remove the template just because someone said "ok, this is fiction". -- Ned Scott 05:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

eh, I'll post this on the talk page for WP:WAF. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What?

Could someone please change the "in-universe" in the template into a link to a dicdef. I for one, have not the faintest idea what the phrase means. -- RHaworth 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's explained in the WP:WAF link, but some people might not think to look there. Maybe a double link just to avoid confusion? -- Ned Scott 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific section of the talk page

Somebody needs to figure out a way to have this redirect to a specific section of the talkpage. -- trlkly 15:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Color Scheme

Shouldn't this template be using the WP:AMBOX color scheme for "style" rather than "content"? Neitherday (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really more content-related, actually - fixing in-universe is rarely something which can be done without referencing sources and adding non-fictional content to an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

specifying article or section

Just a suggestion, but someone should edit the template to allow for a "|section=yes". If an editor doesn't specify, then it should default to article. Also, if they do specify "section", the second line should read: "Please rewrite this section...". Linking to the same thing, but worded for "section".--Rockfang (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is already supported, but in a simpler way: just pass the word "section" as the first attribute. See the testcases for an example. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I never thought to do that. And I wasn't aware of the testcases page. Much appreciated.--Rockfang (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the "cause/reason" tag

It seems to me that the "cause/reason" tag is somewhat pointless and is just taking up space. This is especially true since a great number of characters stop appears because the show ends. If the character stops appear for another reason, it can better be covered within the article.--Marcus Brute (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What cause/reason tag? This template only takes a |subject= parameter from its subtemplates, and a user-defined |described_object= parameter, which is almost not in use. Debresser (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll move this discussion to the Television subtemplate.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do We Have A Section Template For This?

Do we have a section template for this? If not, then one should be made.Bernolákovčina (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just use {{In-universe|section}}. The result will be Debresser (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Equivalent for hagiographies?

What is the equivalent of this template for articles about saints which discuss hagiographies as though they were history? --Macrakis (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

Please change

This {{#if:{{{subject<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{subject}}}-related|}} {{{1|article}}} '''describes {{{described_object|a work or element of fiction}}} in a primarily [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction|in-universe]] style'''.

to

This {{#if:{{{subject<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{{subject}}}-related|}} {{{1|article}}} '''describes {{{described_object|a work or element of fiction}}} in a primarily [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#The problem with in-universe perspective|in-universe]] style'''.

Currently, the template has 2 links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, the first as "in-universe" and the second as "explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective". This would change it so that the first link links to the specific section that explains the problem with writing with "in-universe" style, so that the same target isn't duplicated with two different link texts.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Minor tweak, and looks like it's been that way for a while, but agreed on the duplicate link. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)