Talk:Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Awards
If we keep the awards section, I think that only the character specific awards should be kept. Best Film, Best Action TV Spot, Best Special Effects, etc, should be removed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's some wiggle room in there. With respect to special effects, those are more significant for the depictions of Tony Stark as Iron Man and Bruce Banner as Hulk than they are for this character. bd2412  T 19:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So what awards do you think we can remove? Do you think the character article need the various "Best Film" awards? The trailers? What about the "The Joe Barber Award for Best Portrayal of Washington, D.C."? --Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would keep the "Best Film" awards; those are hard to separate from the character. That's just my opinion, though. I could be wrong. Trailers can go. I should note, there are some missing awards for Evans for his roles in the Avengers films. bd2412  T 19:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Creators on infobox
I think we should focus on the creators of this version of the character. Not the actual comic book character creators. Jhenderson 7 7 7  19:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But they are not known as the creators. They aren't credited as such and don't receive royalties for it. What they did, is adapted the comic book character to the screen. I'm pretty sure you'll find no where that they are known as the creators, which would mean that it is WP:OR to call them that. --Gonnym (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So just remove the creators? Jack Jirby and Joe Simon wasn’t involved with this take of Captain America at all. So they don’t belong either. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Superman (Salkind films) lists both the comic book and film character creators. I think that's a good model to follow. bd2412  T 00:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally feel that way too. There might not be a reliable source on who created the loose version character but wikis like the Marvel Database will always tell you the screenwriter is the creator and we should already have sources out on who the screenwriter of the film is.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The screenwriter just writes lines. The director is more responsible for creating the character. In this case, at least, we know Joss Whedon was given a run at the script. bd2412  T 02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We might need to footnote that. But still the screenwriters probably do need to be acknowledged. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The creator credit should only be used if we can find a source that gives that credit. I was actually even trying to find a source that talks about Phil Coulson (which was an original creation) but the best I could find was this. Regarding Captain America, the issue is easier. Here is a source from Comicbook.com which says that at the end credits of Infinity War it was shown that Captain America was created by Simon & Kirby. Can't argue with that credit. We could go with the Oliver Queen (Arrowverse) route and slightly abuse the parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am well aware that the Captain America is created by Jack Kirby and Joe Simon. That source is not incorrect and I am not questioning it. But this article is not about that the original Captain America at all and we should reflect that. Just like Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe). I still don't mind the Superman (Salkind films) approach though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion. Seeing as how this is used in similar articles but is a misuse of the parameter, I'm thinking of adding a dedicated parameter to the infobox. How do you think the parameter should be named? --Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The distinction, I think, is between the "comic book creator" and the "MCU creator". bd2412  T 22:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I get that, but as I said above, you'll never find one source calling them "creators" nor do they appear as such in the film, which actually does show a "created" credit for the comic version and they don't also get credited in future films they are not involved in (which all this means is that it is WP:OR to say otherwise). They are merely people who "adapted" the character, but in no way created it. --Gonnym (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about "adapted by", then? bd2412  T 22:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good name for the parameter but what about actually sourcing the statement? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the ideal source, but IMDb lists "Writing Credits (WGA)" as follows:
 * Christopher Markus	...	(screenplay) &
 * Stephen McFeely	...	(screenplay)
 * Joe Simon	...	(comic books) and
 * Jack Kirby	...	(comic books)
 * WGA stands for "Writer's Guild of America", so the listing reflects the credit as recognized by the Guild (which is very picky about how credit is apportioned). bd2412  T 22:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think for "adapted" a screenwriter credit should work (screenplay & story / writer). I'll also state (which I hope is not controversial by the entries in Thor and Tony) that the credit should be for the writers of the first film only and not every film. --Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The question though is the impact of the later writers on the character, but that is a discussion for later i think. We don't want to end up with something as convoluted as List of Batman creators. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, but if we really want to be pedantic, then a character is created once, it is adapted into a new form once, but it can be continuously developed. So all future writers are always developing the character. --Gonnym (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the credits in the actual film are specified as WGA then I think they would count as an RS for this case. No need to involve IMDb in this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * True, although the credits for the actual film are a primary source, and IMDb is just secondarily reporting them. Perhaps better secondary sources exist for the WGA-reported film credits. As for the impact of the screenwriters, it is usually mostly nuance. Frankly, the director's casting choice is itself of paramount importance. bd2412  T 22:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that that the director be credited instead of the writers or including the writers? Once we get that part clear we can add the parameter name and documentation. --Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically, I would credit them all. I would have an "initial director" parameter for the first director for the character, as that is the person most responsible for the initial film performance of the character (arguably along with Chris Evans, but his name is already in the infobox). bd2412  T 13:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're saying adapted_by and initial_director? Can't they both use the same field (similar as how comic credits for Iron Man and Captain America don't separate them into specific roles)? --Gonnym (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect to "adapted by", I'm going with the determination of the Writer's Guild. I don't see the downside to having separate labels for these positions. bd2412  T 15:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A part from the fact that comic creators aren't separated into different parameters (whether it should or not, I don't know), we need to take into account two more things: the first, how does initial_director work with regards to television characters such as Barry Allen (Arrowverse) or Oliver Queen (Arrowverse) or even Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe); and the second is the label of the field, if we implement it. "Initial director" seems a bit off to me, but to be fair, I don't have any good alternative. --Gonnym (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A part from the fact that comic creators aren't separated into different parameters (whether it should or not, I don't know), we need to take into account two more things: the first, how does initial_director work with regards to television characters such as Barry Allen (Arrowverse) or Oliver Queen (Arrowverse) or even Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe); and the second is the label of the field, if we implement it. "Initial director" seems a bit off to me, but to be fair, I don't have any good alternative. --Gonnym (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sharon Carter
There has been some back and forth over the life of the article about whether to include Sharon Carter in the infobox as a significant other. I think it would be best to generate a specific consensus on that point here. I have no strong feeling about the issue one way or another. bd2412 T 17:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember they have no relationship, not even dating and shared only one kiss in one scene. Show me where they are in a serious relationship, which is what "significant" means and I'll drop my opposition. --Gonnym (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly disagree, but is Rogers' relationship with Peggy Carter shown to be any more significant than that, on screen? bd2412  T 17:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is slightly more, in that there is a much more emotional relationship between the two and the fact that both hold on to each other after all these years. That said, I don't mind removing her as well, as she does indeed not really fit this field either. --Gonnym (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

S.T.R.I.K.E.?
Should S.T.R.I.K.E. be listed in the Affilations? AFAIK, this organization hasn't shown up in the MCU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be on this page that isn't in the MCU, except in the section on differences between the MCU and the comics, if a source notes the difference. bd2412  T 22:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019
In Spider-Man: Far From Home which takes places 8 months after Endgame it is said that elder Cap has recently died. 12.232.194.110 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Trialpears (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourced and added. Note that it is not specified that "elder" Cap had died. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Content regarding clothing style
regarding the removal of the sentence:

"Prior to the release of Infinity War, Rogers was criticized for his civilian attire throughout the series to that point, described as being "like a Kohl's mannequin, or a Wii avatar: bereft of patterns, graphics, imagery or anything you couldn't color in with one singular crayon"."

While this is a minor detail, it is a commentary on the costuming of Steve Rogers in the MCU specifically, and it is from a reasonably reliable source. In the absence of content like this which is unique to the MCU characterization as a whole rather than being film specific, there is little reason for this article to exist at all. BD2412 T 01:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It just seemed to me that the sentence sounded as if the critique was something generalized, instead of just something one article said. It also felt a little out-of-nowhere since that whole part is devoted to his superhero costume. I think, in comparison to the rest of the information in the section, this seems quite unimportant. El Millo (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unimportant and irrelevant are two different things. While it is true that the focus is on his superhero costume, as a character, he spends a reasonable amount of time across the films out of costume. BD2412  T 03:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unimportant and irrelevant are synonyms, and I considered that information to be irrelevant, given that that opinion it isn't shared or even contested by anyone else and that no other coverage of his civilian attire exists. El Millo (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is more of an issue of placement location in the article, as the content is as much a content on Roger's personality as on the costume department. Wikipedia has no requirement that multiple instances of coverage of an aspect of a fictional character need to be reported in order to be noteworthy. BD2412  T 03:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way with respect to the same source used in the Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article. Throughout the films, Stark in his civilian attire exhibits a fashion sense that has been described as "part Mob boss and part Big Bang Theory cast member", and alternating "between boxy pinstripe suits and faux-ironic vintage tees". at the end of the "Characterization" section. It is an opinion that the writer of the article has, and if that is the only thing that can be said of the way these characters dress when they're not using their "super suits", then I don't consider it noteworthy. Maybe if we could find some info from the costume designer about their civilian attire, but I doubt it. El Millo (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want another source, here is a Technobuffalo piece that describes the civilian attire preferred by Rogers, stating that the character "might wear a very distinctive suit when he's on duty, but the rest of the time, Cap tends to go for a very low key look. Steve's look is based around very simple pieces that work together". The same piece also comments on the civilian attire of other Avengers, including Tony Stark and Bruce Banner. By the way, if you didn't know how iconic Tony Stark's hipster look is, Google "DJ Bruce Lee". BD2412  T 03:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did know. I don't think the subject in particular is irrelevant, but the information provided by the source is. Given how iconic it is, we can surely find good sources with valuable information. That source from Technobuffalo doesn't seem very good either, since it is about how to do cosplay. I found one that's also from Vulture but is an interview with Civil Wars's costume designer. Here it is, and it might work. El Millo (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another article focusing on the subject. Now we can include that Vulture 'critique' as part of a paragraph on how they dress. El Millo (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, now we're getting somewhere. Fashion may not be important to everyone, but it is a deeply ingrained part of the milieu of society, even as applied to characters adapted from comic books. BD2412  T 04:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll get to Stark and Banner over the weekend. Cheers! BD2412  T 05:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll fix some other stuff in these articles. El Millo (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Time travel category
Steve Rogers and Tony Stark are both categorized as time travelers, but none of the other participants in the Time Heist seen in Avengers: Endgame are categorized as such. Bruce Banner, Clint Barton, Scott Lang, Natasha Romanoff, and Thor should all be included in the category "Time travelers." --IJVin (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * that is not a defining characteristic of any of these characters. Removing the cat from Steve and Tony's articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: The aspect of these characters traveling through time is just as important to the story of these specific characters as Thor's eating disorder or alcoholism are to Thor specifically, both in the film in question and in the greater sense of character development or story across the entire MCU.
 * Steve Rogers (the "man out of time") is the one MCU character for whom there is general agreement that time travel is a defining characteristic. He is known to have originated in World War II, and is often referenced in terms of his being from a different time. He also happens to do more intentional time travel than any other MCU character. BD2412  T 22:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Steve is a "man out of time" but he doesn't "time travel" to get to the present from WWII. A "time traveler" in my eyes is someone like the Flash characters from DC Comics, or Doctor Who characters. They literally have tools/powers allowing them to traverse time. Steve (or any of the other MCU characters) do not have this outside of the one need in which they had to have it. Captain America isn't classified with this cat, so the MCU version shouldn't either. Also can you please clarify this for me He also happens to do more intentional time travel than any other MCU character. When has he done more intentional time travel? Steve has only travelled time in Endgame during the time heist and at the end of the film, but again, that's not a defining characteristic/ability of the character. To your point about Thor and having the cats about alcohol abuse, eating disorders, and PTSD, makes sense because the character got to that point. If you were to describe these characters to any one who did not know them, you would not call any of them time travelers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Steve's article having Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters covers the "man out of time" aspect of his character, not time traveler. Also per Category:Time travelers, it says "This category is for fictional characters who are notable for frequently traveling through time." Again, this doesn't apply to any MCU character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is probably the wrong place to have this discussion, but the literature on time travel reflected in our article, time travel, specifically includes cases of time travel through a long sleep or other such preservation. Rogers traveled in that way from the 1940s, and is out of his own time for literally the entirety of the rest of his time in the MCU, until he intentionally returns to his own time at the end of Endgame. The fact that he chose to return to that earlier time makes his entire time in the modern era one long trip to another time. Of course, in Endgame, he also travels from 2023 to an earlier point in his own timeline and interacts with his past self, then travels to the 1970s, then returns to 2023, and then assumes the responsibility of traveling to all the times visited by all of the others to return the stones, and then travels to the 1940s and lives out a life from there, so that there is one point during the Battle of New York where four different versions of Steve Rogers from four different times must all exist at once (original Steve Rogers, 2023 Steve Rogers there to collect the stones, later 2023 Steve Rogers there to return the stones, and old Steve Rogers who has been living with Peggy since the 1940s), three of whom got to that point through intentional time travel.
 * Although I cannot immediately put my finger on the previous discussion, there was consensus for this previously, which is why this article has had the category without objection for nearly a year, while it has been removed repeatedly from other MCU character articles. Although consensus can change, removing the category at this point does require consensus for that change. BD2412  T 00:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * four different versions of Steve Rogers from four different times must all exist at once ... and old Steve Rogers who has been living with Peggy since the 1940s. That last is wrong, because he went to a different timeline where all those other events didn't take place; but I see your point about him being a time traveler of sorts by being asleep for 70 years. El Millo (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if he was in an alternative timeline (which has not been canonically established), he existed in that timeline at the same time as the other three versions of him were in the Battle of New York, and had the ability to return to his native timeline, as evidenced by his doing so in order to appear on the park bench at the end of Endgame. BD2412  T 00:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he wasn't there at that moment, because in that timeline he wasn't there since the 40s. But let's not discuss plot details. That part notwithstanding, I agree with your argument regarding the inclusion of the category for Steve Rogers in particular. El Millo (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree with this definition and having this cat for Steve. Let's disregard for the moment what occurs in Endgame and just look at the "man out of time" aspect. First point, the comics character is not included in this category, even though they both share this aspect, which to me is an indication it should not be included. Second, as I stated above, the MCU page has the cat "Fictional cryonically preserved characters" which covers the "man out of time" part of the character. Once again looking at the cat description for "time travelers", it states characters should be included who frequently time travel. This isn't Steve Rogers. Time travel in my eyes is something like person A is in 2020, and then in a short moment, through superpowers or a device/time machine, are in 1680. By that logic and definition, that isn't what happens to Steve (in the comics or MCU). Yes, for him, one moment its the 1940s, the next the 2010s, but he experienced all the years and moments in between being frozen even though he was not personally aware of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you or I think constitutes time travel is irrelevant because there are sources which address this question, and which characterize a lengthy period of unconsciousness after which the unconscious person revives in a different era as a form of time travel. For example, Lucy Pollard-Gott, The Fictional 100: Ranking the Most Influential Characters in World Literature and Legend (2010), p. 350:

Rip Van Winkle was, in fact, a time traveler. He accomplished his voyage to the future without aid of any elaborate contraption, such as H. G. Wells would envision in The Time Machine, but by the simple act of falling asleep.


 * If Rip Van Winkle can be considered a time traveler for his twenty-year nap, it is elementary that Steve Rogers can as well. In fact, Ryan Wasserman, Paradoxes of Time Travel, p. 10, literally says:

"In the Captain America story, Steve Rogers crashes in the aircraft in the Arctic during the closing days of World War II. Rogers this then in case the ice and Preserve in a state of suspended animation for nearly 70 years. When he is thawed out, Rogers shows no sign of aging, and soon returns to normal superhero activity... [T]he process of digesting his last meal will take approximately seven hours of Rogers’s personal time and 70 years of external time. On Lewis’s definition, that kind of discrepancy is all it takes to make someone a time traveler."


 * The "Lewis" referenced by Wasserman is philosopher of time David Lewis, whose authority on what constitutes time travel handily outweighs either of our views. Cryonic preservation is a red herring to this question, and does not inherently cover the "man out of time" aspect because it is obvious that someone can be cryonically preserved for a period of a few days or a week, and waking after that would not be considered time travel due to the absence of period discrepancy. Similarly someone can be cryonically preserved for centuries or millennia and never awaken, or die in that state after that lengthy period of preservation, and therefore never experience this new era into which they have been transported, and would therefore also not be considered a time traveler. It is the fact of Rogers experiencing being out of time (an experience that is referenced in every film featuring the character at any length) that makes him a time traveler for the whole of his journey visiting our time. BD2412  T 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Rip Van Wrinkle isn't included in the Time travelers category, and the Time travel article mentions being asleep for a long period of time as an early concept of time travel. Some ancient myths depict a character skipping forward in time. It even links to this character you mentioned. It also states that Early science fiction stories feature characters who sleep for years and awaken in a changed society. The Time travel in fiction article also states the same: Stories from antiquity often featured time travel into the future through a time slip brought on by traveling or sleeping, and it links to the other article's section mentioned before. According to both these articles, it seems that "sleeping through time" is an early concept of time travel, but not considered part of the modern concept of time travel. El Millo (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * an early concept of time travel, but not considered part of the modern concept of time travel that was my thought on it as well. Looking at all the other articles categorized in "Time travelers", they all fall under the more modern definition of what we consider time travel, not "being asleep for long periods" and waking up in a new era. Considering that, Steve Rogers does not fit in that categorization. Per WP:CATDEFINING, this just doesn't pass, since I can not find any sources backing up that the MCU version is a time traveler. All my results just point to the concept of time travel as used in Endgame. And as far as I'm aware, we currently do not have any other cats that would be better suited here like Category:Fictional characters that wake up in another time (that wouldn't be the name, but just to illustrate my point). If one of those existed, I'd support featuring that, but not "Time travelers" because that just isn't correct per our modern definition of what that is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have pointed above to reliable sources which define it more inclusively, one specifically referencing Steve Rogers in this context. There is not uniformity of agreement, so it is, at least, an open question. I would add that if Rogers had come from the past to the present and immediately adjusted to it and never thought about the past again, this might be a different question. However, his experience largely focuses on his displacement from the past, and the consequence of this being his experience is what leads him to volitionally return to the past via more conventional time travel, when the opportunity presents itself. In other words, aside from from time travel while trying to gather or return Infinity Stones, Rogers makes two very important trips through time, one from the past to the present in his first film, and the other from the present to the past in his last. BD2412  T 19:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I note, by the way, that Ellen Ripley is currently in this category. Ripley, the protagonist of the Aliens films, also "time travels" in two of the films by being in suspended animation for a long period of time, and in a third film by being cloned hundreds of years after her previous death. I can't say that this is more substantial than the events that make Steve Rogers a time traveler, particularly where Rogers ultimately travels to numerous times in the past, while Ripley only ever goes further into her own future. BD2412  T 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that basing ourselves in the characters already included in the category will prove ineffective. Ripley is there, but Philip J. Fry from Futurama, for example, isn't. We should keep the focus of the discussion on whether its inclusion is right or wrong by the definition of the category and the definition of time travel given by the reliable sources in those two articles (Time travel and Time travel in fiction). Now, on the one hand, sleeping for a long time is included as a way of time travel, but it's only referred to as an early concept, therefore pointing out a difference with the modern concept. The question is, does this difference between the early concept and the modern one make it not time travel? Should we go with the modern concept only, or should we include this concept present in stories from antiquity? Given that there's already a category that defines this "sleeping through time" with more accuracy, should we just limit inclusion in that category? Could we maybe turn that Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters into a sub-category of Category:Time travelers? El Millo (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is possible for a character to be cryonically frozen without being in that state long enough for their revival to be considered traveling to a different time, or to be frozen and never revived. The MCU's Steve Rogers, of course, has the added benefit of having strapped on a literal time travel device for a return trip back to their original time to live out their life there - a characteristic not shared by Ripley or Fry, or even by the comic book Steve Rogers. Indeed, what other character in the category for the cryonically frozen also used a time travel device to jump around to a bunch of different times? If the cryonic sleep aspect is an edge case, the full circle drawn by the events of Endgame should thoroughly solidify it. The idea that Endgame can be ignored is problematic, as it would for example prevent characters who died in the film from appearing in any categories for fictional deaths. BD2412  T 01:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't ignoring Endgame, it's not considering the time travel there to be "frequent" or "notable" enough to make the characters "time travelers". El Millo (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We agree that time traveling in Endgame alone does not qualify any of the characters for inclusion in the category, though the case is stronger for some than for others (with Tony Stark, for example, having made three trips, counting his trip to the Battle of New York, then to the 70s, and then back, as compared to Natasha Romanoff making a single one-way trip to Vormir). Rogers is a special case because, of all the characters in Endgame, he is the only one to come from the past in the first place, and the only one to return to an earlier time permanently. BD2412  T 01:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if we consider a long sleep as a form of time travel, we can't really count that in favor of the category's inclusion here because of WP:CIRCULAR. It was also be a WP:SYNTH situation (the Wikipedia article says long sleep, Rogers did that, thus Rogers is a time traveler). However, knowing Wikipedia covers long sleep as a form of time travel (albeit an early form), we can then go try and find sources that claim Steve Rogers (specifically the MCU version) to be a time traveler in this way. And I haven't been able to find any substantial coverage outside the one quote BD2412 presented above (which in and of itself appears to be making a different case than definitively calling Cap a time traveler as literally after what was quote above, it says at the top of pg 11: The problem, of course, is that cases of suspended animation are not normally considered cases of time travel.), so we again are failing WP:CATDEFINING. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then the category needs to be renamed. You may have noticed, different editors keep coming through and adding this category to multiple of these pages because it appears self-evident to them that it encompasses the time travel depicted in Endgame. BD2412  T 23:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be renamed, it just has to be removed from the article because Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters covers Rogers being frozen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that requires that a cryonically preserved character be preserved until a different era, and certainly nothing that requires one to spend their waking time after that period of preservation adjusting to their new time and referencing their previous time. For example, Han Solo is in that category. His cryonic preservation was for a short enough period that he had no changes to adjust to upon awakening (other than Luke having become a Jedi during the intervening months). Ellen Ripley, again, was frozen for decades, but thawed into a world functionally identical to the one she had left behind. Neither of these characters spends any appreciable time reflecting on how things have changed from their native time. Of course, significant to the category under discussion, neither of them ever strapped on an actual time machine and traveled back to the time they originally came from. Solo is preserved for too short a period to call his experience travel to another time, but other characters like Buck Rogers and Aang and Khan and Philip J. Fry specifically only ever make one trip through time, a one-way journey, while (Steve) Rogers makes a complete round trip (and, as it happens, makes stops in many other times, including the classic time travel trope of interfering with his own past self). BD2412  T 01:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Time traveler is still not supported by sources to include. There's no argument there because the lack of sources support its removal. We have to follow what reliable sources state about a character. And we don't have any other applicable category that we can add, so we shouldn't be saying "Well time traveler is the closest, let's use it." because that's just incorrect. Perhaps something like Category:Fictional characters displaced in time might be appropriate, but that currently doesn't exists and I don't know if there would be enough other articles to justify it's creation (if there are, then great). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We seem to be going in circles here. The first reference I cited, though not specifying this character, clearly states that the kind of experience he had constitutes time travel. The second source clearly states that a leading figure in the field would consider this time travel. Here is another example: Howard Bruce Franklin, Future Perfect: American Science Fiction of the Nineteenth Century: An Anthology (1995), p. 249:

""Rip Van Winkle" (1819), the archetypal time travel story, is of course Washington Irving's most influential contribution to the development of science fiction. ... "Rip Van Winkle" dramatizes the essence of time travel, the contradictions between chronological time and psychological time."


 * James Gleick, Time Travel: A History (2017), p. 32:


 * Time travel by hibernation—the long sleep—worked for Washington Irving in “Rip Van Winkle,” and for Woody Allen in his 1973 remake, Sleeper.


 * Numerous authorities that a state of suspension of a sufficient period of years is a form of time travel. BD2412  T 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We're still treading into WP:SYNTH territory. Yes, you've established that long sleep at times has been considered a form of time travel, but we still do not have the sources linking Captain America being defined as a time traveler because this happened to him. As I've stated previously, the comic character is not included in this category, so why should we put the MCU version? The frozen part is essentially the same for both, but no one calls the comics version a time traveler because of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, my understanding from the previous discussion is that all comic book characters are prohibited from the category because time travel is so often retread as a plot device that comic book characters would then come to overwhelm the category. There isn't a major comic book character for whom there are not multiple time travel stories of all different types. BD2412  T 19:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What previous discussion are you referring to? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion which I have been unable to put my finger on, where it was decided that a bunch of characters (mostly MCU, plus Hermione Granger from Harry Potter) should not be categorized as time travelers, but MCU Steve Rogers was okay. This was sometime in October or November 2019, after which all MCU characters except Rogers were permanently removed from the category (aside from various drive-by efforts to re-add the others, which are quickly reverted). BD2412  T 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you remember in which page it was? El Millo (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe knowing what this past discussion entailed and what was said would be very helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this it Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 4? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be, but my recollection is that there was specific discussion of Steve Rogers being the sole MCU exception due to coming from the past and living outside of his own time throughout the course of the films. I am frustrated by not being able to find it, but I know I'm not imagining that this was discussed before, because this is the only MCU page that the category watchers have consistently left in the category since then (the others occasionally get re-added and then removed again). BD2412  T 22:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well per the June 2019 CfD, per my reading of the consensus and the closing, having not participated, I wouldn't say it allows Steve (heck it doesn't even explicitly mention any of the MCU characters). The closing says to [purge] members where this is not defining for the character and Netoholic offers a pretty compelling argument. As well, consensus from this discussion is against having a category like this cover suspended animation. But I will concede the June 2019 discussion does not come to an agreement to determine what "frequent" means. I'll keep searching to see if anything else bubbles up for other discussions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I found this at Tony's talk, but that seems like a precursor for the June 2019 CfD. The Tony talk discussion does not mention Steve, and frankly the way that discussion went and flowed into the CfD, it doesn't really support including for Steve either. If I'm reading and 's comments correctly, they would not support including the category for Steve in the same way they didn't support it for Tony. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be on one of the deleted category talk pages, but there does not appear to have ever been anything there. Regardless, there is a discrete reason that other editors stopped removing the category from this article while continuing to remove it from the others. BD2412  T 22:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you're trying to find that reason, but currently based on what I've been able to find in past discussions, there is no reason it should be kept here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "This category is for fictional characters who are notable for frequently traveling through time." This doesn't describe any of the Avengers. Time travel was used in two movies, Doctor Strange and Endgame. The Avengers were notable before the time heist, and their notability didn't increase because of the time heist.
 * That said, I'm really surprised no one has discussed the blip as a form of time travel. All the characters who were dusted returned five years later in a mass time travel experience. I'd apply the category to Spider-Man and Ant-Man (maybe Gamora, depending on how GotG 3 goes) before I put it on Iron Man or Hulk. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I could possibly see Blip victims more as time travelers before Steve and the other Avengers. But the more I'm discussing this, the more I'm having issue with "Time travelers" as a category, because while the Blip'd characters can be called time travelers, they don't fit in what I feel is the "conventional" form of using a device/machine (TARDIS, the Wave Rider from Legends of Tomorrow) or having powers to move through time, like Barry Allen. So I feel like perhaps we get super specific with offshoot cats, like "Fictional characters that experience a time event" or what have you, or the "Time travelers" cat needs to get more specific. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the blippers shouldn't be included because the category says "frequently" traveling. Blippers only did it once. That adverb rules out anyone who falls asleep for a long time, too. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh good point, they did only do it once. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the first half of the discussion so if anything I say was later said or refuted, my apologizes. I don't see the "man-out-of-time" aspect as time traveling. The fact that he was asleep or didn't age, is besides the point as he was present for the entire 70 years. Which is why I wouldn't say characters like Clarke Griffin (cyro-freeze), Supergirl (Kara Zor-El) (stuck in the Phantom Zone), Dylan Hunt (stuck in time dilation) and Leo Fitz (cyro-freeze) are time travelers, but characters like Jeffrey Sinclair, Evan from The Butterfly Effect and Jemma Simmons are. --Gonnym (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you missed anything. We may have covered in the second half that "long sleep" was considered a very early form of time travel, but pretty much most modern definitions of time travel now do not consider "long sleep" to be a form now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see at this point that there is a consensus forming against the category, and perhaps a preference for creation of a new category for characters who have become displaced from their own time without becoming displaced through time travel via conventional time machine. BD2412  T 15:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above to Argento, I think the "Time travelers" category needs some attention, either through a clearer definition of what goes in there, or with additional sub categories to cover displaced characters in time or what have you, without being extremely specific. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We need something like Category:Fictional characters displaced in time, then, which would cover those named by Gonnym, plus Rip Van Winkle and others whose placement in a time different from their own is other than through the sort of frequent time travel typified by Doctor Who/Quantum Leap-type characters. BD2412  T 18:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The draft for MCU's Doctor Strange is prepared to be included in the Time travelers category when it is eventually moved to mainspace. Just to be sure, this character does belong there, right? El Millo (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think so. His time travel in his debut film is more mystical than mechanical, but he repeats the same event of fighting Dormammu dozens of times (possibly thousands), each time traveling back to the moment when that encounter began. It's not quite clear whether his viewing millions of futures while on Titan counts as time travel. BD2412  T 21:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been a minute, so forgive my memory, but I'd say no. In Doctor Strange he gets sent through various dimensions by the Ancient One (not time travel), and then at the end of the film, he goes back in time to save Wong (one use) and then he sets up a time loop, which I don't think is time travel. And then in Infinity War he projects himself into the future, but doesn't actually visit each of those possibilities. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But what he does by setting a time loop isn't perpetually traveling to the same point in the past? El Millo (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of starting another long conversation on the wrong talk page, I can see both sides of the argument. There is no question that the action of going from the point of his death to the point of his arrival in Dormammu's realm is an instance of time travel, but even though he goes through the same loop an unknown number of times, it could be considered a single "trip". If looking into the future is not considered time travel, then I would grant that he is not a frequent time traveler. So far as I know we don't have a category for characters with time manipulation powers other than time travel. BD2412  T 02:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This could change, but as BD2412 said, I would probably call what we've seen from Doctor Strange time manipulation than time travel. And again we don't have these categories, but I don't know if we should be creating them... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Legacy"
Hi, User:Honeynose2009 has removed the "Legacy" section twice now without any explanation and I have reverted it. I would argue that this is an appropriate section given that the events of "Falcon and the WS" directly impact Rogers' legacy. What has become of his mantle/title after the events of Endgame is part of his characterization, and this section can be expanded upon as the series unfolds. I'd like to open this up for discussion. Bloodyboppa (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The user has been temporarily blocked for WP:Disruptive editing.

Image
, would you say the other image was better, and if so, why? IronManCap (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say your alternative is worse because the mask obscures the facial features. Its actually fairly rare in the movies that Steve wears the mask,so its atypical of the performance. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve uploaded a new version with the suit but without the mask, any comment? IronManCap (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I insist that you stop making changes to the article's image without demonstrating consensus for a change. Also, stop uploading non-free content images against WP:IUP. If you have alternatives to suggest, link them here - don't upload them. Once we establish consensus and verify the source is appropriate, then the image can be uploaded. -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok,, please explain why you find this image unsuitable. , feel free to comment. IronManCap (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, what is the actual source of the image (ie where did you download it from)? You need to update the text on the image page with the actual source. Although quite large in size, the quality is quite poor, which is a going to be a problem when it needs to be made smaller per WP:IMAGERES. Also, its facing the wrong way per the MOS:IMAGELOCATION recommendation. Aesthetically, the smirk feels inappropriate - not an improvement overall from the current image. -- Netoholic @ 23:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:IMAGELOCATION merely states that images should be on the right-hand side of the article, which it will be since it's in the infobox. I think the smirk is a relatively minor issue, especially given the big grin on the image at Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe). I will update the relevant source and rationale info ASAP. I think the quality is ok compared to the image at Gamora (Marvel Cinematic Universe) or Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe). I feel it is an improvement as I feel having two images side by side means there isn't a clear focal point and convolutes the depiction of the character. IronManCap (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this section of MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text". -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be preferable in certain instances, although given the picture is in the infobox, I don't think that would be a particular issue. The Erik Selvig image already faces towards the right for example. IronManCap (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging, ,  , , , ,  if they would like to contribute. IronManCap (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, slightly off topic but still related to Steve Rogers, please note my message on Talk:Captain America's shield, which not many users have responded to despite my pings. I would appreciate insight on whether the subject seems notable. IronManCap (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated the relevant source and fair use info for the alternative Captain America image. Any objections to me adding it in this article? IronManCap (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, "Pinterest.com" is an unacceptable source for images on Wikipedia. I feel like you still have no idea on the proper handling of non-free image use on Wikipedia. I completely object to use of that image for the grounds I mentioned above and for the lax sourcing you in particular are using. Your image upload needs to be deleted with haste. -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, what would you say about uploading a new image for Scott Lang (Marvel Cinematic Universe)? I uploaded one with the costume but showing his face, but it was reverted by someone arguing full costume was better, even though the face isn’t visible at all. IronManCap (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A picture with the suit on but the helmet removed would definitely be better, referring to Scott Lang. —El Millo (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss the appropriateness of an image related to a different article. -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How about an image like this one? —El Millo (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 23:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. IronManCap (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would crop it around his head and upper body though. IronManCap (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, what would you say about this image? IronManCap (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I don't know about that "facing the text" rule but I'd use that picture. Still, the other picture is both fine and compliant with the MoS. —El Millo (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Non-free_content, you must indicate the URL of the specific page where you got the image from, not just the overall name of the website (The Verge is not specific enough), or for the original source, you must indicate the name of the movie and an approximate timestamp that the image appears in the film. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * ✅, found an alternative source with the exact same image if that's ok. IronManCap (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

- Stop altering the image used on this article without demonstrating a clear consensus. Your proposed images have several issues that prevent their use at this time. -- Netoholic @ 22:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t know if you might have attempted to read what was said above, but it is absurd to say there is no consensus. One editor agreed, another thanked me for the edit. I call that 'consensus'. I understand you do not agree, but that isn't rationale for constantly reverting agreed changes. IronManCap (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why you feel so strongly about retaining this image that consensus does not matter? (WP:AGF of course). IronManCap (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternatives have been suggested, but your alternative images have issues that have been raised by myself and others - specifically your sourcing, which is lax and concerning. First, we have to have a valid alternative image, THEN you have to show that the alternative image has more support than the current one. So far, no alternatives (even if the problems were addressed) is better than the current image. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just read above. It was agreed. Sourcing was fixed. The only possible objection you could have is that your upload has been removed. It is now being used on another article, so your image is now violating non-free use by claiming to be used on one article only. Stop reverting against consensus please. and  agreed with this image. They are invited (again) to the discussion should they have any points to raise. IronManCap (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have shown everything you claim I have not. Find a specific single example of 'lax sourcing' or 'no consensus', or else I will revert to the other image per agreed criteria which two other editors approved of. IronManCap (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

by, are you referring to the instead of the exact time? Apart from that,, the link to the Time article makes no sense. If the image itself isn't there, then the only source is the film itself. —El Millo (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The image is the thumbnail of the video on that link. That image comes up on a Google Image feed. IronManCap (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The image he proposes to use was first sourced to "pinterest.com" and then "theverge.com". The current sourcing is to a Time article, but image is actually a screenshot from "Avengers: Age of Ultron 2015, roughly midway through the film" per the text on the image page which is not accurate enough per our screenshot guidleines that say to give a timestamp. IronManCap has shown little knowledge of proper image sourcing and handling on Wikipedia, and continues to impulsively impose his preferences. A clear demonstration of consensus that the new image is better than the current, longstanding one is needed - as well as that a new alternative is in compliance with our guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 22:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've the changed the link from Time to Slate, where it is easily accessible and not a video thumbnail that can't be clicked on in the source itself. The exact timestamp in the film must still be provided. —El Millo (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing it to Slate didn't fix much. Slate gives a photo credit of "Photo by Jay Maidment/Marvel". Jay Maidment was a still photographer for Marvel - so the image may not actually be a screenshot from the film - it probably was taken on set and released as part of a publicity kit for the film. But I still have to ask - is the image better than the current one and worth this effort? Its facing the wrong way suggested by guidelines, for one. -- Netoholic @ 23:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How about we make it more simple? Let's just use this image, which is simply the right one of the combined image we're using right now, properly cropped of course. —El Millo (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've been checking the other MCU character articles, and out of all of them, Bruce Banner, Bucky Barnes, Clint Barton, Gamora, Scott Lang, Peter Quill, James Rhodes, Erik Selvig, Stephen Strange, Thanos, Thor, Vision, and Sam Wilson are all looking to the right side, while Phil Coulson, Carol Danvers, Drax, Nick Fury, MJ, Loki, Wanda Maximoff, Peter Parker, Rocket, Natasha Romanoff, Sif, Tony Stark, and T'Challa are looking to the left side. Groot has one image looking to the right and one looking to the front, and Trevor Slattery is kind of looking to the front. So, I don't know how closely this "looking to the text" rule is generally followed. —El Millo (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I don't know much about image uploads on Wikipedia; I simply preferred the new image but obviously we need to ensure it is being properly used/sourced. I did however just attempt to find the image in question during "Avengers: Age of Ultron", and it doesn't appear to be in the film. The closest I could find was 1:01:00 into the movie, Cap and Thor are standing next to one another but Romanoff, Stark, and Banner are also in the shot. 1:01:19 is close as well, but not quite.Bloodyboppa (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest the same thing as, in that we simply use the image on the right. Sourcing is also ok for that, as it has already been verified. I also would like to take the opportunity to apologise if any of my behaviour seemed disruptive. IronManCap (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually think this two-panel image format follows the standard of the Bruce Banner article, showing both the main character both in-and-out of "costume". This could be replicated on many other articles like Tony Stark (in and out of armor), Peter Parker, Loki, etc, - any where there is a significant visual distinction. As far as the facing question, most of the articles you linked use photos that are almost directly facing front with a little variation - only the ones that are clearly facing away from the text should be replaced with alternatives. -- Netoholic @ 01:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The differences between Bruce Banner and Hulk are astronomically greater than between Steve Rogers and him dressed as Captain America. So, do you agree with using just the one on the right for Rogers? It's facing the correct side, his face is seen clearly, and his costume and shield are there as well. —El Millo (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You picked one example of several that. Are you saying a side-by-side of Tony Stark in and out of armor wouldn't be better than the current single image? I think it would, just as the side-by-side for Steve Rogers is better. So no, the single image you propose would not be an improvement over the current two-panel. -- Netoholic @ 08:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the current picture of Stark is better than having side-by-side pictures of him as well. The reason I think we should use the right image is mainly beacause Rogers, unlike Stark, does not look very different with or without the suit, and having two images leaves no clear focal point, and generally I think an infobox should have a single image. Side-by-side should only be done where necessary, such as for Groot or Bruce Banner obviously looking very different in different portrayals. There does not seem to be much point in having two similar images of Steve Rogers, I would say. IronManCap (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He only looked as he does in the left image for the first film and for like five minutes in Age of Ultron. The character in his Captain America suit is widely more recognizable than the character in military clothes. You talked about a ; there clearly isn't one here. The difference between Stark and Iron Man is also much more significant than between Rogers and Captain America. The only ones that have more than one picture are Bruce Banner, who had two different actors and turns into the Hulk; Groot, as and adult and as Baby Groot; and James Rhodes, who also had two different actors. All the others have just one picture, almost all of them in costume with their face uncovered. The only exception to that last one is Stark, who isn't wearing any piece of the suit. The only cases in which there's less difference between their civilian attire and their superhero costume than in this case are there ones where there's no difference, namely Thor, Loki, Nick Fury, etc. WP:AGF, I hope you weren't aware from the beginning that you wanted to keep a two-panel, therefore not willing to accept any single picture proposed. —El Millo (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging If they have an opinion on whether to use the image on the right or keep a double-panel. IronManCap (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't see the need for the double panel. It just makes for two smaller images, for which details would be harder to distinguish. I would endorse having one larger image. BD2412  T 17:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok Are we in agreement on using just the right hand image? IronManCap (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you there? (Forgive my impatience). IronManCap (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the cropped image would work nicely; makes more sense as he only wears that Army uniform in the First Avenger. Right-side shows everything we need, his face, uniform, and the shield. All for it.Bloodyboppa (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, well given what has been previously said by BD2412 and El Millo (who specifically proposed this), I take it they agree. Demonstrable consensus has now been reached, and sourcing is verified. I will upload the image accordingly. IronManCap (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are any objections to the image that has been agreed upon, there is this one as an alternative. IronManCap (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I like the agreed upon image better. Not a fan of his mouth being open, and having the shield in the image is a nice touch.Bloodyboppa (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note sure if it's just me, but now the image is showing up as a distorted version of the original? Just FYI.Bloodyboppa (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated it with a slightly higher-resolution version, because the other one was blurry. It may need to purge the page, or just wait a while until it updates for you. It happens sometimes. —El Millo (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When an image is changed, it takes a while to update. Maybe refresh the page a few times, it will change eventually. IronManCap (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Children
, I disagree that it isn't relevant to include unnamed relatives in the infobox. The fact that Rogers may have children is a noteworthy point worth mentioning due to particular interest in that aspect of the character, supported by various sources and statements by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. Whether or not a character has children is always a noteworthy fact for an infobox in my opinion, as it gives an idea of their age and development. IronManCap (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In the case he had unnamed children we would just put a number there. Anyway, possible children could never be added. The infobox is for facts, if there's something like possible children that's noteworthy we can say it somewhere in the body of the article, backed up by reliable sources of course. —El Millo (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)