Trailblazer101

dailyentertainmentnews.com as a ref

Hi Trailblazer101. I'm in the process of removing all use of dailyentertainmentnews.com (and related domains) as a reference or link. It's been heavily spammed, and appears unreliable. I noticed that you added it to Christopher Reeve, which I've removed. [1][2] --Hipal (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. I'm not too concerned about it. You're all good. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Trail! You don't know anyone with a subscription to Production Weekly, do you?

I've been working on the page Good Fortune (film) and I was looking at Good Fortune's listing on Production Weekly's website, finding listings for January 11th and January 18. I wouldn't know how to get the information from those listings, since I'm broke lol. Know anyone with a subscription who can look at them for info and maybe put them in the article? Thanks. Have a great one! BarntToust^(Talk) 17:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I used to be subscribed to Production Weekly the past few years but I recently relinquished my subscription to save costs. I am unsure if anyone else currently holds a subscription. Sorry I'm not able to help, I know it can be very expensive. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice try

its ok. Im very patient and someones gonna need to add new stuff eventually. Cant keep it locked fotever. Tootles KryptonianHero (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, we can if need be. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know about a DCU character draft.

Draft:Rick Flag Sr. (DC Universe) - Rick Flag Sr. looks like the first character that may qualify for a character article in the DCU? Ain't gonna try to crystal-ball this stuff, but when I read Grillo call him the "Sam Jackson-to the MCU" of the DCU, I just had to start an article. I've started a structure similar to Nick Fury (Marvel Cinematic Universe) for this character (hell, since Grillo said that Flag was like him), and I'd appreciate it if you might look over what i've set here so far, and maybe let others who work on the project know about this one. Hope you're doing well! BarntToust 23:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice job! I'm glad to see another draft. I know it is likely going to be a while before this draft would meet the general eligibility for mainspace inclusion, although with how recurring Grillo's role seems to be (I could imagine him being in more content like Lanterns and Waller, etc), I think this is a good draft to start with for the DCU. I'll be sure to take a look at it over time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

like I said, I was sold with the concept of making a draft since it has actual viability to be an article qualifier, when I read Grillo say that Flag was going to be to the DCU what Sam Jackson is to the MCU. Have a good one! (p.s. my bet is he'll be in Waller in some capacity.) BarntToust 00:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Precisely, that was a good call. Take care, Barnt, and keep up the great work! Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Although

Hey, I've noticed that you have been changing "though" to "although" recently and was wondering what you were basing that on. I think some of the times you have done that, especially when the word is in the middle of the sentence, have not been required. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I changed those instances because from my understanding, "although" is a more formal usage than "though" as a subordinate clause, as explained here. I'm sure I may have changed it where it may not have been as helpful, and if so, I have no problem if those instances are changed back. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Though is definitely more common in informal speech, but I think both can be used in formal writing in different situations. Just wanted to check before changing anything back. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Slow return

Hey there. I was planning to start returning to some editing soon but with the new 2025 trailer figured I'd come back now to do a bit. Still will be slow back at it probably and likely won't hit my watchlist to review things. If there were any discussions or content you'd like me to look at let me know and I'll try and prioritize. Pinging Adamstom.97 so he knows too and can chime in. Seemed like you both were still actively editing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, good to hear from you. I'm not up-to-date on the Agatha page but otherwise have been keeping an eye on things. Tried to do some clean-up after the video today but didn't attempt to move things around in the development sections for the Phase articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I grabbed remaining bits from the Phase Seven draft and moved those where they had to go, and a few things on the Phase Five one over to Six. I think they all just need a look over for a copy edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Heyo! Glad to hear from ya, Favre! I've mostly been doing routine work like copyediting and updates, though I don't think there have been any major conversations that have been had on the MCU side. There was a whole debacle at Talk:DC Studios but that was dealt with. The recent Marvel updates are a nice update for sure, so thanks for your help with those. A little bit ago I got the file mover rights, so I no longer have to bug you with those requests lol. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Trail! see you've done some copyediting/cleanup on Minecraft: The Story of Mojang

Saw you checked out Minecraft: The Story of Mojang, an article that I recently did massive expansion on, and did some cleanup. Some of that cleanup you did was removing {{nbsp;}} magic words from between the 2--and--Player part of instances of 2 Player Productions. This system was originally added in by another editor, User:Rhain, (who I sorta became acquainted with from working on The Last of Us (franchise) topic articles, and a month or so ago I asked him to check out all the expansion work I did on Minecraft: The Story of Mojang) and I didn't think much of the nbsp; stuff that he added in. Come to think of it, I don't see a reason for it to be there in the first place, but I also don't see a reason for it to not be there. Any particular reason you thought it should be removed? Anyways, I don't have an opinion on inclusion or exclusion, I'm just wondering since your removal was contradictory to what Rhain added in, and I continued to sort of go with the system he was doing. Just something I'm quizzical about.

Hope you're doing well! If there's anything about the article you think I could improve, do tell me! (I'm only getting around to actually finishing up the DvD this weekend, so I'm going to flesh out the Content section next.) BarntToust 21:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello again! I ran a script that typically adds these instances to prevent variables (such as "minutes" and "millions") from being separated from their numerical values. I have noticed this get misconstrued with actual titles of works and properties when numbers are included in them, although those are typically not needed (ie. I have seen it added to The Batman Part II. I don't have much of an opinion of whether it remains or not, it's really just something the script either was not made with that in mind or it just didn't recognize it. Also, I love the work you've dedicated to expanding upon the article! Keep up the great work! Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, makes sense. Rhain probably had a script running that put the {{nbsp;}} between the 2 and Player part of the production company, 2 Player Productions. I have noticed on the article on The Last of Us Part II, an article Rhain's involved with, the non-breaking spaces are similarly placed in instances of the title Part{{nbsp;}}II, so that's pretty similar to instances of The Batman Part II that you've recalled.

Thanks for the words of context, and thank you for the kind words about my work! Have a good one. BarntToust 17:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a script—those were manual additions. Not necessarily needed, as Trail said; just a personal preference to avoid awkward line breaks per MOS:NBSP. Up to you if you want to restore them! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain i might look into that. BarntToust 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, there.

Hi, dude. We need to talk about Deadpool 3. Deadpool 4 is not happening. The website, Movie Web mentioned rumors. Kevin never actually confirmed Deadpool 4 or even Wolverine 4. Fox Marvel is done for, and Deadpool 3 is just a way to overdue something (thought it was used as a goodbye letter to the Fox Marvel stuff). Will you please redo my edit? It’s not based on my opinion. I wrote what is on the website.

Besides, we got MCU rebooting everything X-Men.

I hope you understand.Lenny7092 (talk) Lenny7092 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

None of what the sources discussed is confirming anything and we are not saying they confirmed it. Reynolds simply expressed interest in returning for the future, possibly in a fourth film or another project. You have no source saying Deadpool 4 is not happening. All we know is there is potential interest in Reynolds returning. As for the X-Men reboot stuff, you comments and what you added are not necessary (and how do you know Marvel is done with Fox's content when they could (and have) had prior actors reprise older roles? Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ryan is not sure about this, though. He and Hugh Jackman can return in a MCU crossover, like how the Spider-Men from 2002-2007 and 2012-2014 series appeared in Spider-Man: No Way Home, but no fourth Deadpool film (or fourth Wolverine film. The Fox Wolverine characters are done). I mean, is Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 4 or The Amazing Spider-Man 3 happening? No. Just returning characters from other universes.

Deadpool 3 is just an extension from the Fox Marvel movies that put a retrospective end to them while being a sequel to the Deadpool movies in 2016-2018 (made by Fox). Deadpool 3 was never necessary after Disney bought Fox in 2019, anyway.

Plus, read this article: X-Men (film series). It says that Marvel Studios will be doing a reboot to the X-Men series made by Fox, as in for real, as in not continuing the Fox-Marvel-universes stuff anymore. As in being set in MCU’s Earth-616 (aka prime reality). Fox and MCU are two different groups of multiverses.

On a side note, I used Google to look up how reliable MovieWeb is. Many people don’t believe in what it says. It is basically speculation.

The thing is, you don’t have to make readers of the Wikipedia articles want to do a petition for Deadpool 4. Kevin Feige never confirmed there being Deadpool 4, anyway, you know. I don’t mind actors reprising their non-MCU character roles in Avengers movies, but still. The Deadpool movies need a real reboot from the MCU, anyway.

I’m sorry if you don’t like my comment, but Fox Deadpool (and the other Fox Marvel stuff) is overly done for. The Fox stuff is in the past. It’s for the sake of good story-telling in a story that involves the prime reality. People are getting sick of witnessing multiverse stories that could potentially mess up prime realities, anyway. You should check with people in Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, and other social media to see what they think, anyway.

To be honest, I don’t want the MCU to end up like Bionicle by being cancelled because of its multiverse messing the story up in a complicated way.

I said all of this because I was laughed at by some people in those social media websites because they don’t care about my topics or use their brains. I hate these guys. You seem to be a smart one, so I hope you understand. I understand you want facts and proof about them, but what I said is proof to at least me.

Lenny7092 (talk) Lenny7092 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I admittedly don't have time to read all of that text, which makes it difficult to understand your point here. I am well aware of what Marvel is doing with the X-Men in the future. Could you please simplify what you are saying so I can best articulate a more appropriate response? Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024 - Madame Web (film) - Edit Warring warning

Your recent editing history at Madame Web (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PepGuardi (talk • contribs) 05:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@PepGuardi: I don't see the benefit in you using this same template on me after I sent it to you, though I digress. Your baseless accusation of "censorship" is without merit, and I strongly encourage you to WP:Assume good faith when working with other editors. It really is not that much of an issue. The gross production budget is the original value of the film (which in this case is $100m), while the net value is the budget after all tax incentives and expenditures have been taken into account, with Madame Web having a tax break that brought the net spending down to $80m. This is basic Hollywood accounting and it is typical for these articles to list the gross production budget first in the infobox, see The Marvels, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, and Guardians of the Galaxy. I am not trying to "censor" anything as you put it, I am just ensuring what we display is factually correct. As for the usage of "superhero" in the short description, the primary genre is still a defining characteristic of the film and helps to add context for readers who may not be aware of what it is from just the director' name alone. The description is still short and jus below the 40 character limit as outlined at WP:SDESC, so I am not sure what your issue is with that. I am more than willing to collaborate with you on this, but please keep a leveled head and do not throw around baseless accusations. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

on the text you actually put 80-100 range. It should stay 80 million because this is how much the studio in fact spent. If you meant a point on this we can add “net”, like “80 million net” on the body text? The name superhero sounds a minor things, but it’s ok changing it you think it’s relevant. About the order, the problem is that when you search for the movie budget if the gross budget comes first it appears as the movie budget when you search for the movie budget information on google. So I guess the better option is keeping the net first, because this is what actually studios actually spent. PepGuardi (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the sources, Sony says it spent $80m but Deadline and THR have sources saying it cost more into $100m, and that the $80m was a result of tax breaks. The gross production budget of $100m is what was actually spent in full on the film before Sony saved $20m from tax breaks and got the $80m. Studios tend to love making films seem like they cost less than they actually do, so saying it is only the net budget would be misleading, as explained in the sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

studios are filming in London so much instead of in the US because they’re actually saving money with London tax incentives. The net value is the movie final cost. It’s pretty common. Just to be clear, I’m ok with the details, net and gross. I think it makes sense. It was only 80 million before due to a discussion on talk page other editors had. I remember you after some weeks came up with the idea of putting the movie ranges, I even thanked you. So I don’t understand why you had to change the body text. This is why I am feeling it like a censorship, because it seems if it’s not like you say then it’s not valid. I think there is not huge problem in keeping the net first and gross after. Then you could keep the rest as you want. What do you think? Could it be a happy middle? PepGuardi (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Censorship is the deliberate withholding of material. I have not removed any details, rather, included them more upfront. I am going off of what the sources in the article state, which I included with quotes in the citations themselves. The gross production budget is the true cost of the film while the net cost is the final one after tax incentives, yes. However, only listing one without the other in the body is not being as accurate and placing the net cost over the actual production cost is disregarding the factual analysis behind it. It is more accurate to list the gross budget first followed by the net cost because the gross came before the net figures were determined, hence, it is the first budget of the production. It is not "because it seems if it’s not like you say then it’s not valid", I am basing this rationale off of what the sources have explained in great detail and what the general consensus is among other film articles like this one for handling this, so it is not just myself alone who came to this determination to use this for film articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

However, the net budget is how much the studio in fact spent on the movie. So it is not right saying a studio spent 100 million in a movie when it fact it cost studio only 80 million. However, I agree with you that it’s important mentioning both, I just don’t see why to do it in the introduction. But if you think it’s really important, ok. Do it. I personally would put only 80 million net in the introduction since it’s the most relevant information, but given that we’re trying to find a happy middle I have to accept your point of view as well. About the name “superhero” in the description, I think it makes since what you said. Although I don’t know if it’s extremely necessary, I won’t oppose. The only thing that I still ask to be kept is the budget order on info box. So this can be a happy middle, right? PepGuardi (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate your willingness to find a compromise, I will stress that Sony spent $100 million making the film and then cut that cost down to $80 million, still spending $100 million on the film before regaining $20 million in tax incentives. That's how those tax breaks work, they have to spend a certain amount and get a slight repayment. So, saying Sony only spent $80m on the film is false. If your main concern is search engines not showing both budgets, I think that would be something to bring up to their people about, rather than trying to change this article from the standard practice that is common across similar film articles. After all, both are listed in the infobox so I do not think we should be help up over such a minor technical detail. I will note that some search engines are different than others and oftentimes they do not update their SEO serves with the most-recent Wikipedia changes, so it does take time for changes on our end to be reflected elsewhere. Though, we should not be changing our content due to external factors such as this one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I also appreciate your kindness while we were discussing. So I’m happy we have found a happy middle. Sorry for the delay in answering your, it was a really busy day. I saw you changed page, I just reordered the net a gross on the info box as we talked before. Is there any way to transfer this discussion to the article talk page? Or do you think it’s not necessary? PepGuardi (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not feel as strongly about which budget is listed first as long as both are included. There is a way to transfer talk page discussions, although, considering this has relatively been wrapped up, I do not think that would be necessary as that is typically done to allow for additional editors to comment, which does not seem necessary at this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if you think it’s not necessary to transfer the discussion to there, no problem. Thank You once again for The kindness and have blessed weekend. :) PepGuardi (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Pep, repeatedly reverting on an article because someone else made an edit you disagree with more than three times is the definition of WP:Edit warring and you are one step away from being in violation of that policy, which is non-negotiable. I merely sent you that warning to encourage you to cease your repeated editing and actually discuss the matter at hand, which as I explained, is your WP:BURDEN to prove and defend the contested changes you want because they differ from the established WP:STATUSQUO of the article and how the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS of film articles are structured. I by no means hold myself to a higher standard because of my additional permissions and I am not going to revert at the article again until this issue is resolved, and I would encourage you to show similar good faith restraint and to keep calm when editing gets hot and to hash our differences out in a WP:CIVIL and good will manner, as that is how this encyclopedia works: we all work together constructively to reach a preferred result, typically by meeting in the middle and finding common ground through civil and calm discussions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

PepGuardi, listen to what is being told to you here. As Trailblazer101 has pointed out, the burden is on you to discuss your proposed change (see WP:BRD). If you revert again, you will be blocked. By the way, your edit summary of You’re literally edit warring for a single “word” and the order budgets should appear. This is not YOUR article is quite ironic. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)