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 articles
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 articles
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.
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 articles
Latest comment: 11 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion
@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
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
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
Latest comment: 9 months ago13 comments5 people in discussion
@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
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
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
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