Talk:Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Considered by many to be the best film of the MCU franchise
@Facu-el Millo @Adamstom.97; the template was to promote discussion. This is a good article, the lead generally sums up the body. Nothing in the body says considered by many to be the best film of the MCU franchise, and the provided sources don't summarize multiple reviews in this way. And this wording hasn't been the consensus version for a very long time. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an under discussion inline template. —El Millo (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Picking the correct template goes a long way, yes. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I knew there had been no contest when this wording was added but I didn't realise it was done so recently. I am not against changing it, I would prefer we didn't have all those references in the lead like that myself, but I don't think they should just be blanket removed without discussion. I would suggest that we move them to the recrption section, tidy up the wording, and update the lead to match. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. —El Millo (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. It's likely we can remove some of the more questionable refs used with some more reliable ones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the lead today, still not resolved, it's just a few single positive reviews. Surely there are sources that say "many" critics find this the best film in the franchise? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nuked. It's puffery, and two reviews do not make for "Considered by many to be the best film of the MCU franchise" Meters (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Nowrap
When your WP:BOLD edit is reverted more than once, and by more than one editor, please do not revert back and forth. As you must know, this is edit-warring and against the recommendations of WP:BRD. Secondly, you have not provided a reason for removing. – No one said there was, nor is that a valid reason to remove something. If the infobox documentation or some other PAG had said that should  be used, then that would be a legitimate reason. As I explained in my edit summary, is currently being used to avoid an unnatural line break, so unless this causes accessibility or other issues, there is no reason to remove it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Was typing this as Adamstom reverted; they basically summarized what I wrote above. Pinging, who added the template and may be interested in this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you didn’t provide any valid reasoning to keep it the first time around. But for the sake of WP:EW, I will refrain from further reverting until we reach a consensus on whether this is ok to have or not. And in case it wasn’t clear from the multiple second user’s edit description that reverted in question, they meant to remove the entire name parameter but accidentally went back to the nowrap revision.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My revert addressed your then latest change of having the name parameter exactly same as article title, you should discuss if unclear not make your edit for third time. I also disagree with you removing it as there is a natural break between title and subtitle. Indagate (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then what qualifies as an unnatural break? Because I've previously attempted the exact same thing in the past and got that reverted. So you're telling me we can just flip-flop here and have no real protocol besides "because I feel like it"? Make it make sense!!--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Natural break being the title and subtitle being a similar length. Can you give an example of where you've been reverted before please? Indagate (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You believe looks better than ? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How it looks is irrelevant to this conversation.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How it looks is literally the reason for doing it. —El Millo (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then if I ever get reverted for doing the same exact edits again as I had in the past but was reverted otherwise I will come back here, ping you guys and the user I'm having the conflict, and you guys can deal with it.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you still need consensus and discussion if you're reverted. It's not like "it looks better" is backed up by policy or anything, but if it looking better doesn't violate any policy or ignores any guideline, then it can be done, as long as you're not doing it against consensus. —El Millo (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it's clear this one needs a policy rule if its gonna be that inconsistent per-article.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the sort of thing that Wikipedia makes rules about. Potentially there could be a suggestion for best practice added to the Infobox template instructions and/or to the film manual of style if the wider community felt that was warranted. But for now, the issue should be determined through local consensus at each of the relevant articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"The Return of the First Avenger" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Return_of_the_First_Avenger&redirect=no The Return of the First Avenger] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- Zoo  Blazer  17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"Avengers 1.5" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avengers_1.5&redirect=no Avengers 1.5] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- Zoo  Blazer  17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)