This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Captain America: The Winter Soldier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Captain America: The Winter Soldier has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 30, 2014 Good article nominee Listed April 5, 2015 Good topic candidate Promoted November 18, 2019 Good topic removal candidate Demoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 21, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the upcoming sequel to the 2011 film Captain America: The First Avenger, will feature the Falcon, the first African American superhero? Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Comic book / Marvel Cinematic Universe / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). 2010s Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

@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.[1] 70.163.208.142 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an {{under discussion inline}} template. —El Millo (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picking the correct template goes a long way, yes. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. —El Millo (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@GalaxyFighter55: 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 {{nowrap}}. There’s no rule in the infobox guidelines that says this must be done to subtitles. – 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 {{nowrap}} should not be used, then that would be a legitimate reason. As I explained in my edit summary, {{nowrap}} 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)[reply]

Was typing this as Adamstom reverted; they basically summarized what I wrote above. Pinging @Rhain, who added the template and may be interested in this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You believe

Captain America: The Winter
Soldier

looks better than

Captain America:
The Winter Soldier

? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How it looks is irrelevant to this conversation.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How it looks is literally the reason for doing it. —El Millo (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5 § The Return of the First Avenger until a consensus is reached. -- ZooBlazer 17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5 § Avengers 1.5 until a consensus is reached. -- ZooBlazer 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]