This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the In-universe template. |
|
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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't this template be using the WP:AMBOX color scheme for "style" rather than "content"? Neitherday (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
|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)
Do we have a section template for this? If not, then one should be made.Bernolákovčina (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
((In-universe|section))
. The result will be 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)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)