User talk:Trailblazer101

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Trailblazer101}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Trailblazer101 is busy off-on and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Mulitple Discussion Points

Hello @Trailblazer101! If someone has multiple updates to flag on a Wikipedia article talk page, is it preferred to post one point at a time or all at once. SPasell (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either one works depending on when you notice that changes need to be made, although it is more preferable to continue these types of updates under the same discussion rather than starting a new one so long as they are still close in proximity to when the discussion was started. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful. Thank you @Trailblazer101 SPasell (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MCU redirect categories

Hi! about you reverting my edits on MCU redirect categories; I'm trying to clean up MCU categories from WP:OC. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe redirects to lists is not a tracking category though! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore my edits for now; I do not want edit-warring. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. While I appreciate your efforts, it is considered ill-advised to blank category instances. As a hidden cat designed solely for the navigation of Wikipedia-side specifics by the WP:MCU taskforce, there is not much harm in retaining this as is. Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe redirects is primarily for single-issue redirects, not the redirects pointing to lists. The template even notes Typically, tracking categories are automatically populated by templates invoked in pages or by the MediaWiki software, though it is not required to be autoed. As a container category, it should contain only subcategories and by all intents and purposes covers this. Restoring your WP:BOLD changes after they have been constested is a clear and willing violation of WP:BRD, and I highly encourage you not to do so and to instead take this to WT:MCU. You seem fairly new to these articles, so ?I would encourage you to stop while you're ahead and familiarize yourself with how this taskforce operates. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed the categorization of the "redirects to lists" so they are all categorized solely under the main redirects lists cat and not by the main MCU redirects cat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was they were on both cats; but. now that you've fixed it...Thanks! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New DC Comics drafts!

Greetings. Today, I wrote two new drafts based on the aftermath of the Absolute Power crossover event: Draft:DC All In and Draft:Absolute Universe. Anyone can apport new editions, but until now, there are only rumors and not proper references, except from the doubtful Bleeding Cool. Thank you and see you next time. Fico Puricelli (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate you reaching out to me about these drafts, I tend not to proactively edit the comics articles themselves as those are not my main area of interest. I would reach out to WP:WikiProject DC Comics to see if anyone there could be able to help contributing to these if you want. Cheers! Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tags tend to be removed during the AFC process

The thinking is that the process will solve the issues. When accepted those tags tend not to be replaced. Obviously any editor is entitled to place them when they feel it is valid. I am not quarrelling with you, just explaining why any tags tend to vanish during AFC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. I was just ensuring the article gets the proper cleanup. All good. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe film series

Hi! I'm just trying to list the main films of the series atop the listing in each category. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not necessary and is not a common practice done with categorization, which should almost always be in the alphabetical order rather than placing preference upon select articles just because they are of more significance. Those keys are only really used when there are more main articles that are the broad primary subject of the cat, ie if there was an article at "Ant-Man (film series)", then it would be placed first in that cat, though not the individual films. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout#Production company/Distributor

Hi @Trailblazer101: There's recent discussion about production company/distributor. Also another discussion about "Label" or "distributor" on the album release history table. Feel free to comments. Regards. 2001:D08:2920:80BA:17E4:6BEB:B2E5:3429 (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know you, don't edit those articles, and am not falling for this WP:CANVASSING trick. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool Corps

The one next to Zenpool is Welsh Deadpool (the one with the flag on his suit/new variant just like Babypool), the one with cap is French Deadpool, the Japanese Ronin one is Watari (Ronin Deadpool/The Fool) 111.92.117.136 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Four: First Steps

Hi, there is a source from Screen Rant indicating that filming has begun. Would it possible to move the draft article to the mainspace? Thanks. - Richiekim (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Batman GA

Hey, I'm back from what eneded up being a longer than expected wiki break and I'm available to help with The Batman prep if you're still planning on getting it ready for GA. -- Zoo Blazer 05:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heyyo, glad to hear it and welcome back! I may not have as much time coming up depending on external circumstances, though I am still able and willing to work on this. I know the reception section is in need of a massive rewrite to provide a more overall summary of the reception rather than explaining each of the selected reviews, in addition to some better images being used for filming, marketing, and the premiere. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find images. Reception is probably the thing I'm the worst at in articles, so I'll let someone else take crack at it -- Zoo Blazer 18:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it works in terms of which images we can use for premieres, but EW has a bunch of options from the LA premiere -- Zoo Blazer 05:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

Hello, Trailblazer101,

I just deleted some drafts for CSD G13 reasons and it looked like you had done some work on them. Because they had been restored via REFUND, the original draft creator would have received a notification instead of you. But I thought I'd let you know in case these films eventually come out and you want to continue to work on them. They were

Draft:The Sinister Six (film)
Draft:Black Cat (upcoming film)
Draft:Nightwatch (upcoming film)
Draft:Silk (upcoming film)
Draft:Silver Sable (film)
Draft:Untitled Sony Marvel female-led film

Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I'm not too concerned about these ones as they all have not really received any major updates, though I will still keep them on my watchlist in case they need to be restarted (as opposed to refunding them every once and a while). Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

I just noticed that your Featured List Candidate Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe went through.

Congrats!

You have doubled the number of outlines that have that designation.

Thank you.

Keep up the great work.

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 16:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! I am quite proud of this feat and aim to see more outlines added to the list in due time! Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a set of eyes, since...

...my talk page has recently been the subject of some (actually pretty hilarious) vandalism from a Portugal-based IP editor. Though one editor has stepped in already, I thought I'd ask you to watchlist my talk page for a tiny bit. Or, if you'd rather not, I would still invite you to read the lengthy vandalistic tangent there because I was laughing my ass off the whole time! It was very hilarious and made my day.

Take care, Trailblazer, and have a good one! BarntToust (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for reaching out to me about this. I have reported the IP to admins so it is on their radar. Should the editor persist, they would be past a final warning and another report would be in order. I agree it is funny what some people fuss about on this site. Good job handling the whole situation! I have also taken the liberty of starting a deletion discussion for that article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Wolk as I believe you are correct and it ought to be formally discussed. If you ever require any assistance in the event something similar to this happens again, please don't hesitate to message me as I am always willing to offer a helping hand. Cheers! Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for helping with all of this, and special thanks for going out of your way to start a deletion discussion for the article. And, I really appreciate your offer of future help! I'm really thankful you had my back on taking care of the silliness.

Have a splendid day! BarntToust (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers

Per Category:Wikipedia categories tracking Wikidata differences, all comparable categories right across the board are located at "[Name of Website whose property is being compared]", with not a single one located at "Cite [Name of Anything]". It's the name of the website that matters in that tree, not the name of the template the website is being cited with. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that. Well then, the cat I created should be renamed to the proper title to maintain the tracking cats already there, rather than making a redlinked cat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a speedy rename request of the cat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About "publisher" cites on Superman 2025 and the DCU.

I'm inclined to add these on all projects in the DCU scope. I'm bored and sick for a bit. It's informational. "Not Needed" is not a good argument, because this encyclopedia is not needed either.

BarntToust (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The refs already have the website parameters which are the only ones necessary for the refs, especially since the publishers can often change. It is just adding needless text to the cites. Being bored is not good justification, and the publisher param is not required. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Publishers stay the same per the time it was published, always. They change per acquisitions. I'm telling you why I've decided to put them on the DCU articles, and I have to time to because I am currently sick.

My justification is it is encyclopedic. Your "justification" is "not necessary". That is not an argument. Publisher cites are a higher level of detail that does not always happen, but when it does, is justified for its detail and knowledgeable value.

I will keep on top of these and maintain them if this cold doesn't kill me, Trailblazer. Right now, my logic beats yours. I will put these publisher cites everywhere, so continuity isn't an issue. Take care dude! BarntToust (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promise. the next one I'm doing is Creature Commandos, then Supergirl, then Green Lantern.

Eventually, I'll even do DC Studios. It's all of encyclopedic value.

I'd ask you what else isn't "necessary", and we're literally typing on it right now; I'm not even being a smartass here, having a free online encyclopedia is not needed. But we have it, lol. Same thing goes for publisher cites. I'll even write us a common Publisher bible so everyone can see it for their own purposes! BarntToust (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which will include what time periods each website was owned by which company. Helpful stuff so it's not exclusively me doing this. BarntToust (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Template:Cite web#Publisher which states that the publisher is only included if it is relevant to do so. Many of these cites linking to the website or newspaper is sufficient enough in citing where the information came from, and often are very similar to the publisher (which is often the owner of the site). It is not of encyclopedic value to every single article and just clutters the refs with more information than is necessary. Publishers should only really be used when it is a separate company or agency, such as a third-party press release agency. These publisher params have been excluded from many of these Marvel and DC articles for years, and there is no consensus to readd them, so please do not do so, especially in excessive amounts. Not everything needs to be included, and if anyone wanted to know what the publisher is, they can simply follow the website link and find it themselves. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I call bullshit, Trailblazer101. That policy says "may be Wikilinked where relevant, not "added" where relevant. Check out The Last of Us and The Last of Us (TV series) for examples of this parameter being added to citations. adding publishers does not "clutter" anything, either. Bullshit on you for saying that too. BarntToust is doing laborious fine-detail work here and you revert her for no reason? You only need to worry about getting consensus for contentious changes, not information expansion, like this. God, this notification storm I've just gotten has been a massive waste of time.

What is your problem? YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that is a template documentation, not a policy. Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your argument. The publisher params have not been used on all DC media articles (and MCU articles) and there should be a wide consensus to change that, not just one editor making rapid changes on their own accord because they feel like it. The publisher parameter is simply not required, and does not add any value to enhance an encyclopedic understanding of the content, which is what should be the focus of the article. The websites in the cites suffice knowing where the information comes from. Also, please WP:Assume good faith rather than calling my comments "bullshit". I also didn't ask you to come here. Repeatedly adding excessive parameters and insisting on doing so to every related article even after being reverted can be disruptive. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you both are fairly new here still, so I would caution you both to please take a step back and familiarize yourself with how citations are formatted in these articles. Publishers are only added typically when it is a book, journal, or news print source, not when it is a webpage where the publisher is the owner of said website. There is no need to get hostile and tout remarks like "bullshit" and "my logic beats yours", as those are neither WP:Civil nor constructive. So long as the citations link to the source of the information (ie, the website, newspaper, etc.), then it is working just as it should be. The fact that the DCU and MCU articles have not included the publisher parameters for years is an indication that they are not needed and have worked just find without them in fulfilling their purpose: to point readers to the direct source. It does not matter who the publisher of a site is for a citation unless the publisher differs from the site owner, and there is no requirement to add all of these publisher params to these cites (especially in excessive amounts). I'm sorry to hear that BarntToust is not feeling well, although, there is no excuse for you both to revert to your preferred changes once it has been contested. Citation templates work without a publisher param. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I watch both of your talk pages for fun, (and especially hers because of the comedic Portuguese people going on rants) other than dabbling in miscellaneous political discussions. Sorry, I called your misconceptions and one outright fallacy (see "not always relevant") bullshit, and even then that was not very wp:civil of me. you don't understand the idea of publisher parameters on references.

Please check out those Last of Us articles to see where they do it. if you are going to use wp:mcu and DCEU stuff as basis to needlessly contest this content, you are not inclined to tell me my examples are OTHERSTUFF. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disregarding the Last of Us articles, I am merely explaining that the DC and MCU articles have simply not used publisher parameters because they are not required and do not add anything that is not already covered by the direct source of the citation (website, journal, etc.) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just means that because something is done at another article does not mean it ought to be done here, as well. I have been editing citations for much of the five years I have been contributing to this site, so I believe I have a pretty good understanding of how they work. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you are so concerned with the frivolous notion that this all needs to be connected, would this not be a cheeky, poetic indicator that this is DCU content, something to differentiate it from MCU and DCEU things? if you're going to bring this up like so. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you are insinuating here. Also, repeatedly reverting any content on Wikipedia to your preferred version is still disruptive, whether it be content, citations, etc., so I urge you to please stop reverting as it could veer into WP:Edit warring, which is a blockable offense. The DCU and MCU articles each have their own consistent approach when it comes to how the articles are formatted, so any drastic changes to that formatting indented to be consistent throughout them ought to be discussed with the community before further enacting a new consistent approach, regardless of what it is, to ensure it is adequately vetted by the community, for consistency and other editor's input. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is bored and is laid up with time on her hands and is adding this encyclopedic content because she has time off for tedious things such as these. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Trailblazer, I'm not trying to use being under the weather as justification to do random garbage without reprimand. I'm trying to up the encyclopedic value of a topic that is quite dear to me while I have a bit of time to kill. I hear what Yogurt is saying too. Would that not be nice to differentiate DCU and other stuff by having a publisher cite, if we are going to go on about how things need to take "precedent" for whatever reason.

So far, we have established that what I want is not needed but encyclopedic, and that you want things not to evolve from some preconceived historical context for articles I have not been on Wikipedia for long enough to have seen anything about. Had I joined a whole decade ago, I would have put publishers on every MCU page. I want to catch the DCU while it is small. Let me waste my time, please. It does nobody any bit of harm. BarntToust (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DCU and MCU articles each have their own consistent approach when it comes to how the articles are formatted. So yes, let me set this precedent for us now on DCU, because I want to make the DCU articles look nicer! If you want to start a discussion somewhere on the DCU (franchise) page instead of your talk page looking like this, please do. In fact, I might just do this myself. BarntToust (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are cosmetic changes which do not really add anything of value to the content overall. The direct websites are what is relevant to the citations, not who owns them. An encyclopedia provides relevant facts on a subject and cites its sources to the direct information. I do not understand this weird fixation with adding these publisher parameters, although I will say repeatedly doing so can be seen as disruptive, especially when insisting on adding them to thousands of articles to set a new precedent. If this is something you want to be done on all these articles, then that is something you should take up with a discussion at WT:FILM and WT:MCU to garner enough consensus to do so, rather than trying to be individually change the consistent formatting to your own liking.

There are processes that ought to be followed for implementing changes like this. I also was not indicating that your sickness was an excuse to do something unconstructive. It is the manner in which you have undertaken this that is a little unconstructive in trying to implement a change that has been contested and is arguably not important to understand the context of where the sourced information comes from. Take this to a wider discussion area like the ones I linked above first before trying to go through all these articles with your preferred changes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to this for a good while, although I would appreciate if you both reviewed MOS:VAR, which states ""Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. Seek opportunities for commonality to avoid disputes over style." That is why this change needs to be discussed and why I reverted it initially. It should not be reinstated until the discussion has concluded. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, sorry I got indignant over useless publisher cites. There's bigger fish to fry.

Yeah, it was a waste of time to bicker about this with you for the DCU. I don't need to be going there with someone as cool an editor as you. You've been there to help for me before, and I shouldn't waste your time on petty useless garbage where it would be less fun about building the encyclopedia. Consider my proposal at DCU (franchise) withdrawn. Now onto the fish that we need to fry.

At Talk:The_Acolyte_(TV_series)#And_why_exactly_is_the_potential_casting_of_a_high-profile_actor_like_Keanu_Reeves_"not_relevant_enough", the reliability of TheInSneider is being questioned. It turned from "He reported that Keanu Reeves was considered to star in The Acolyte" to "Where is consensus that Jeff Sneider is reliable as a WP:EXPERTSPS?" I didn't find anything in WP:RSP on him, and one editor suggests having a formal discussion about Sneider and his reliability. This would FUCK OVER a good part of WP:MCU, and I'm asking for someone who can help other people understand why Sneider is an expert source.

also, I'd like to ping another editor who I've seen add Sneider's work to the scope of where we hang out, @KingArti, so he might be able to give his input.

Peace & love, BarntToust (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, @Favre1fan93 kinda came to my aid in this discussion already, but two people with the handles "Nemov" and "Pbritti" or have gone against this on the basis that the casting process that happens in TV series is somehow "not relevant" to the section dedicated to casting, and of course, questioning the status of TheInSneider as EXPERTSPS. Asking for friends, of course here with Trailblazer and Arti. BarntToust (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hell, I'm tagging @Adamstom.97 too to see what he thinks about InSneider being questioned. if we end up taking this to formal discussion, I'm going to tag a bunch of people who I know don't really care about or use Sneider as a source to maintain policy. BarntToust (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up adding some argumentative content at Talk:The_Acolyte_(TV_series)#About_InSneider_viability_as_EXPERTSPS in support of Sneider.

I have to apologize to you, Trailblazer, for blowing up your talk page for one reason or another as of late. Thanks for putting up with this lol! BarntToust (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. It's all good. We all get caught up with one thing or another from time to time. As for the Acolyte article, I don't really edit those Star Wars articles and I don't think I would have anything new to provide to that discussion. Regardless of the outcome there, I don't think it would impact the usage of that source at the MCU articles where it has been widely accepted for the actual reports. I will point to some source reliability usage at WP:MCURS, if that is of any help. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 6#Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation

Hi! Is tackling Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 6#Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation still something you be interested in doing? Absolutely no worries if not – we are all WP:VOLUNTEERs, after all – but in my experience at CFD it is usually best when the person who started the discussion does the work because they are most familiar with what needs to be done. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: My apologies for not tending to this. I've been quite busy myself. Upon a quick re-evaluation, it appears many of these shows produced by this company have continued to be produced by it under the most-recent name, so I think a simple rename to the most recent name would suffice instead, similar to what has been done with Category:Television series by 20th Television. Would that have to be a separate speedy request? Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a new (non-speedy) nomination to make a rename happen—but in the meantime, I will vacate my close given you were the only participant in this discussion and you have changed your mind :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've got a better idea. I will simply reopen this discussion and let you make your case for a rename. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 8#Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation, with apologies for the triple message. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]