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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? If not, then one should be made.Bernolákovčina (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just use {{In-universe|section}}. The result will be

This section describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style.

Debresser (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

 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)