User talk:Trailblazer101

Production weekly

Hey, I'm pretty sure you've added production weekly as a source in the past, so I'm wondering how reliable they are for unannounced projects? Trying to decide if it's worth making a draft for a Wiccan series that they recently listed. -- ZooBlazer^talk 02:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have found a lot of times that they compile information of projects from reliable trades, industry insiders, and the rumor mill, such as taking information from IMDb and other unreliable sites. We've had whole conversations about how reliable they are, which led some to believe they mainly are though some information can be questionable and met with skepticism. I would err on the side of caution regarding a Wiccan series, as I saw that was reported on by those Marvel insiders. As I no longer am subscribed to it, I cannot verify what the specifics are, though I would presume it is nothing concrete and probably for the best to hold off and wait and see if anything eventuates. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that the latest issue also includes "Doctor Strange 3" and "Blade". I would be cautious with the former, as well, as to not jump the gun on anything, given there have been countless rumors of that one. The Blade listing could have some additional production information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I know they tend to list projects only in development stages, but it feels weird to have listings added during the strikes right now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. Though some developmental ideas can be had between producers, full on development stages are a hassle without certain crew. I find it best to remain skeptical of any development/production reports during the strikes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The user who shall not be named

Their repeated talk page "revolts" and refusal to work with consensus (or lack thereof) is getting disruptive. We may need to consider taking this to ANI. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: I concur that this has been getting rather continually disruptive and unconstructive, making me question their collaborative efforts in building an encyclopedia and working together. I would get behind a report to ANI should that be viable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. The fact that it's basically about the same few topics (mostly AitF and Helstrom) is getting very draining and the fact we just keep going around and around in circles after setting up RfCs on the matter, which all ran their course and didn't really change any current consensuses. It's getting more and more combative and like a WP:NOTHERE situation. Don't meant to put this on either of you, but I'm not as active at the moment if you'd like to start an ANI discussion about this. And to note, appreciate both your hard work editing throughout the site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You and Adamstom have been around editing MCU articles since way before any of us, so it's you who we should thank — for your service and leadership. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've mostly stayed out of the conversations, but have kept an eye on them. It's gotten kind of ridiculous seeing so many very similar topics being brought up over and over, and now we have similar discussions split between two talk pages. And honestly it's gotten hard to follow because the talk pages have become walls of text, which is why I had to adjust the auto archive. -- ZooBlazer^talk 22:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Avengers assemble scene reception

Hey, if you have time, do you think you could see if you can find any good refs to add to the reception section? I've looked off and on and so far the best I've found is articles calling it one of the best in the MCU/Endgame/Infinity Saga, so I guess we can try to extract some commentary from those if need be. Unfortunately the Endgame reviews don't seem to mention the scene since it was a spoiler at the time. I think the reception is the last major section that needs expanded on the article unless there are other sections that can be added to the article that I haven't thought about. ZooBlazer 01:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll see what I'll be able to find either this upcoming week/weekend or the next. I'm currently busy with other projects, though I'll definitely take a look when I can at what I can gather. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I was just wondering if you have time, could you do a full page c/e of the article? You've been one of the main editors of the article, but you'd still be basically a fresh pair of eyes since it's been a couple months since your main edits, which I think is what the article needs. I feel like the article is close to being ready for a GA nomination, so me and @Dcdiehardfan have been working on adding the last bit of info that is needed over the last week or so. -- ZooBlazer 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Yes! I haven't forgotten about this, I swear! I got caught up with so many other responsibilities and projects, and just recently got hit with a bad cold, though I'll have some time to look over this and see what I can do to give it a nice go-around. I applaud you and Dcdiehardfan for all your hard, dedicated work thus far! Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I neglected the article since I asked you anyway until recently. Hope the cold doesn't treat you too badly. -- ZooBlazer 05:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e! I added one last reception ref so I think that section is covered pretty much fully now. I think it's finally ready for a GA nomination. What do you think? -- ZooBlazer 07:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Magazine param

I know this is where ProveIt puts it, but we should be consistent with the other citation templates on each article and put website/publisher/newspaper/magazine or any synonym at the end, as Cite web currently does. If a template is already ordered that way, there's also no need to change it per MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Roger that. I do recall that being implemented in practice on some of the DC articles, I'll adjust the refs as needed and keep that in mind for further ref updates I'm planning. Appreciate the message! Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick update in case you haven't noticed, but ProveIt should now order the parameters in {{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite news}} consistently with {{Cite web}} (unless my changes are reverted). InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I noticed they didn't move while I was c/e-ing the Batgirl and Lost Kingdom articles, though didn't bother looking into it. Glad to see it worked out for the better, and I hope they stick! Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Daredevil: Born Again

Hey Trail, I am not subscribed to Sneider's newsletter so couldn't see all the details. Does he specifically say there will not be a second season, or does he just say that the 9 episode halves will not be called first and second seasons? I ask because our previous understanding was for the 18 episodes to be a first season and then another season to be coming after that, so splitting the first 18 episodes into two groups that are not called seasons would not mean the second season is no longer happening, unless Sneider specifically said that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Happy to clarify. Sneider stated "I’m told that the old footage effectively constituted six episodes worth of material. Scardapane wrote a new pilot episode, plus two more episodes that were tacked on after six episodes that were previously shot. For those doing the math at home, that’s a total of nine episodes, which will be released as the first half of Daredevil: Born Again. The nine-episode second half of Born Again will come a while later, but technically, it won’t be called Season 2 for contractual reasons. Actors often receive raises between seasons, which is why you have to think of Born Again as one big 18-episode limited series. Given that, I was led to believe that the second season is not happening and is actually part of the series being a limited series as a whole, similar to how the likes of Better Call Saul (season 6) was released in two parts. (I tried seeing if archive.today could bypass the paywall though was unsuccessful. I'll see if I can't find another method for others to view his site's articles in full as needed.) I will note that I was skeptical of the 18-episode first season and another second season given it was cagey wording that was admittedly unclear, and it seems, at least from my interpretation of all the sources, that this was always the intention. (I didn't bring up my skepticism earlier because there wasn't much evidence to support it, until now!) Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I was always a bit skeptical as well. My interpretation was that Marvel hopes this could continue after 18 episodes, so they said it was just the first season, but they aren't at that point yet and when we heard about season 2 plans it was probably just the second half of the 18 episodes rather than an actual second season. Sneider's 'one big limited series' wording I think supports that for now. Thanks! - adamstom97 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, that was my same thought process. Glad I could help. You're welcome! Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Your newsletter and citing here

Hey Trail. Pinging @KingArti: to this. I saw King link to your report about info in Production Weekly on all the relevant drafts. This definitely seems like a WP:SELFPUBLISH issue (and possibly veering into a WP:COI? I'm not really sure). I think we need to use the actual Production Weekly citations in our articles (and perhaps in a hidden comment put "via [your newsletter cite]"). I'm going to go through an undo the edits linking to your newsletter so you (or anyone else with Production Weekly access) can accurately add in that citation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh definitely. I was not expecting it to be used as a source (because I am not one) and didn't want to interject with it out of concern with being a potential conflict of interest. I can add the PW links directly, though unfortunately I still haven't found ways to get public versions of the issues as they are only recent. I didn't want to add the info myself and wasn't expecting it to be used as predominantly as it has been. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, totally. We always have issues with PW citing because only the most recents are online, and even then not really accessible. So whatever you can add as online versions is great, and you can also do offline {{Cite magazine}} citations as well if that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Roger that! I'll have time to get to the sourcing of it all later tonight. I know ComicBook covered the Thunderbolts castings, so I added that in. I'll definitely try to incorporate the magazine cite for PW as needed. This has all been admittedly exciting and I was somewhat expecting this to happen, though I think this is manageable from my end with the sourcing of it all. I just wish PW made it easier (and cheaper) to access their listings! Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Saw that you recently closed a discussion here. Just an observation and word of advice (which you can choose to ignore if you wish) per WP:CLOSE that not all discussions need closed, especially discussions with low participation or become stale. Definitely a judgement call, of course. I'm not saying right or wrong here, but moving forward, if there is low participation and you are heavily involved, it may be best to seek outside assistance from an uninvolved editor if you really want to see the discussion closed. The "ideal" closer is one who can genuinely claim they do not care what the outcome is. Involved closers are best only when the outcome is truly uncontroversial. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I don't typically make a habit of closing discussions, though I believed it was best to do so for these ones given the circumstances. I'll definitely keep your advice in mind for future discussions! Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to ask you about something

I noticed you were part of a Marvel Cinematic Universe taskforce on this website. I think that's really neat! I've also noticed your similar extensive work on DC Universe (franchise) and its related subjects, and wondered if there was or would ever be a similar task force on Wikipedia for that universe. Could I get some information about that? I figured I'd ask you, since you seem to know what you're doing on here.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Have a good one! ReddlSKye (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, @ReddlSKye. Thank you for reaching out with your interest in a DCU taskforce and I just wanted to thank you for your contributions. This has previously been brought up, and it is currently still too early to form such a taskforce dedicated to a franchise that is still in the early days of work and given no content from it has been released yet or have really been in production long enough to warrant a taskforce just yet. While I appreciate your interest and enthusiasm for this, the current articles, much like the MCU taskforce, primarily follow the guidelines established by two of our parent WikiProjects, WP:FILM and WP:TV. These are the backbones for policy and decision making and oversight on these related topics. I can point you to another instance of where this was also discussed which goes about some more details on taskforces here, and I will primarily point you to WP:TASKFORCE. It took 13 years before an MCU taskforce was created and that was done with immense editor interest, so I would imagine it would be a long wait before something like this were to eventuate. Probably several years out from now or more. In the mean time, feel free to help out where ever you can and don't forget to reach out to myself, fellow editors, or those two WikiProjects I mentioned if you ever need any assistance. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Although, I'm hoping that since the clear intent for a cinematic universe to come from DC has been declared, precedent may have been established, so perhaps things won't take so long to get off the ground. Again, maybe in a few years, as you said. (p.s.) the discussion you had that you linked very well explains the reasoning behind why no one has started up something *yet*.

Have a good one! ReddlSKye (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

X-Men '97

When we write an article like this, we don't list in the lead who is back in the cast or who is new, because the lead should not be a listing of 347593847 names. Whether a reliable source describes a piece of information in detail or only in two or three sentences does not mean that its content is invalid/false/null, and MOS:ACCLAIMED, to which you seem to have incorrectly attributed, doesn't say anything about it. ภץאคгöร 22:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe adamstom already articulated my rationale perfectly in his revert. Please discuss your concerns on that article talk page for a more generalized discussion. The critical acclaim piece, as I mentioned, is passing mentions in the refs cited, and that section needs more expansion to justify any such reception information consensus to be included in the lead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Perfect rationales indeed. ภץאคгöร 22:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I won't tolerate passive aggressive behavior on my talk. Please constructively take your concerns to the article talk if you have an issue with the edits, not here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

On Thunderbolts*

You are correct on Thunderbolts*. The info should be in filming pertaining to the chronology. I opened a talk discussion on the page so you and other wikipedians can discuss with User:Grandpallama why this is wrong. I know of this editor from experiences on other pages. They can be pretty thorough/petty to a point (sometimes about the wrong things, in the wrong way). Feel absolutely free to delete this message from your talk page and shoot me an email if you'd like once you've seen this.

Have a good one. I'm heading off to hit the sack. LMK if you wish, I'll see it in 8-10 hours. ReddlSKye (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

ReddlSKye, you're free to strike that unwarranted (as I don't believe we've ever interacted on any page before) personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've watched you in other discussions go after an IP editor in the discussions of the Japanese cherry blosom tree. Even if you banned the adress, he could walk across the street and start up a new adress. The simple thing to do would have been to protect the page from the get-go and not discuss with the IP editor. However, that is irrelevant in this article. Using past info is not helpful now. We are speaking on a press event relating to Thunderbolts* ReddlSKye (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You mean the IP editor who sought me out at my talkpage? The IP that was harassing said talkpage to the degree that admins had to pageblock them? The IP editor who was part of an ongoing sock investigation that resulted in their getting blocked?

I'd say that's irrelevant, indeed, and again invite you to strike your unwarranted personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Currently, that project is in the filming stage. anything that happens during that stage of filmmaking (even casting) is to be written in that section. Marketing during filming, casting during filming, even though in the contemporary film industry where such dedicated phases of a film's conception exist, those go to the major section wherein it is/was the current phase of the film. Please, discuss this further on the talk page of the film ReddlSKye (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)