User talk:Trailblazer101

Blade

If you look at the link which y'all included: https://comicbook.com/movies/news/marvels-blade-gets-a-devastating-update-but-the-new-rumor-may-be-even-better/, it doesn't cite Jeff's newsletter, but the Hot Mic podcast video instead. And in that video, he clearly states it's a rumor. KingArti (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I just added the bits from his newsletter that was published after the podcast aired, as I said. I can attest to it's information as I have a subscription. Here's the full quote: "No confirmation from Marvel, but I’m told that the studio is currently seeking a writer for a Midnight Sons movie that is now expected to introduce the character of Blade into the MCU. I still believe that Mahershala Ali will play Blade on the big screen, but Ali will be 52 years old next month, and I’m inclined to agree with Marvel that a solo movie didn’t make a whole lot of sense. Kevin Feige has spent the better part of a decade struggling to crack a Blade movie, and at some point, it simply makes sense to pivot and take a different approach. After all, Ali isn’t getting any younger… Watch the trades scoop the new writer(s) in the next two months, I reckon. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

ok then assuming this is true, then why not edit upcoming American film to cancelled American film ? KingArti (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We would need more than this to confidently state that the film is 100% cancelled, all we are doing for now is including Sneider's report with attribution. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Correct. Further verification is still required in this instance. This does get me thinking, though. If this does eventuate, should we refactor the Blade film draft as Midnight Sons and retain the development page as "Blade (unproduced film)"? — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably, the only question is if we get reports that a Blade film could still happen in the future in which case we may want to keep the draft and do a separate Midnight Sons draft. But if we do get confirmation that the current Blade isn't moving forward, we would adjust the development page to be more like Gambit (unproduced film) as needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

My two cents is if this all does come to pass, we just start a Midnight Sons draft from scratch (which maybe we can preemptively do that based on my previous MCU talk post of some smoke around it?) and then redirect Draft:Blade (upcoming film) to the development article. We could revive the Blade draft in the future should they ever make a solo film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Y'know, that may be a better alternative. Echoing my comments from earlier, I do think starting a mock-up draft would be a good place to start, so we can get the ball rolling should this eventuate. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Dua Lipa

Hello. Thank you for responding to my request regarding the removal of the actress capacity. I think it's better to call her a singer and songwriter in the short description like it is done in the lede, singer-songwriter is something different. What do you think on that? ~2026-15144-78 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You are most certainly welcome, and thank you for pointing it out! As for your suggestion, the definition at the article for singer-songwriter supports its usage in the short description, considering she primarily (co-)writes and performs her own songs in addition to collaborating with others. It also allows it to remain under the 40 character limit for short descriptions, which spelling out "and" would slightly exceed. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Born Again season 2

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the information because on the day of the ad, a user had already deleted it twice, once including the source that's currently being used. That's why I thought it wasn't valid and deleted it again.

Regarding the discussion, eight days ago I started one, and for whatever reason, no one has commented, even though the previous threads have seen very quick responses and solutions. I'm mentioning this in case you could read it and have any thoughts. Marco camino 10 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed Adam reverted it, but I do not necessarily agree with that rationale because Den of Geek and ComicBook.com have both explicitly stated Leonard Moore's return as James Wesley as a fact, not speculation. I personally believe this could either be reused flashback material or new scenes of Fisk's mind (ala Matt's visions of Fisk in Daredevil season 3). However, we as editors can not come to our own conclusions, we can only work with what sources are available. As for the other discussion you mentioned, I can respond there, but that was not what I was referring to. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was aware that Den of Geek and ComicBook.com are usually reliable enough to include it, but since Adam reversed it, claiming we should wait for a better source, I didn't want to get into an edit war. And regarding the discussion, I know you weren't referring to my post; I mentioned it simply because, just as mine didn't get any replies for so long, a new thread could have the same result. Marco camino 10 (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand. No worries. You made the right call. If anything, we can always go back and adjust the wording to not state it as definitive if there is enough skepticism about the sources' accuracy. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Jack Mulhern Born Again season 3

Hi Trailblazer, I was wondering if this source can be used to add Jack Mulhern to the cast of the third season of Born Again. Adam reverted my edit, saying that D'Onofrio might be reacting to the article without knowing anything, but it seems too hasty for Adam to revert edits simply with his justification and not even discuss it first in a article discussion thread. Because it seems to me that D'Onofrio knows perfectly well who's in the cast, and if he didn't, he wouldn't rely on an article to make a public statement and wanting to see Mulhern on set. If you are not clear on this, I can start a discussion myself. Marco camino 10 (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Adam's revert. D'Onofrio's response is not a clear confirmation of his casting or role, and WP:FRUIT would apply nonetheless in this instance because of where the information is derived from. As always, there is WP:NORUSH to include information on Wikipedia and no harm in waiting for reputable sourcing to arise. I would advise you to take any concerns to the article talk page, because it could be seen as WP:Canvassing asking certain editors to get involved on your behalf. You added the material and it was reverted, so the WP:BURDEN falls upon yourself to justify its inclusion, not the other way around. We have seen Marvel actors get things wrong when it comes to online rumors, such as Patton Oswalt's Eternals 2 comments, so we cannot run with our own assertions. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm so sorry. I didn't do anything with bad intentions. Marco camino 10 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I understand. I'm just letting you know there are proper ways to go about this snd certain policies and guidelines that need to be followed. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Harry Potter main article

Hi Trailblazer101, could you tell me if this is a good summary, User:Marco camino 10/sandbox, of the Production in order to change it in the main article when the season article drafts are published?

I know what you told me yesterday, but in my opinion, this isn't asking users to support me on something, just to know if it's a good simplification so that when the season drafts are published, with the information from the main article transferred to the season articles, sufficient, necessary, and universal information remains in the main article, or if I expand it a bit more Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I think it is a good start, but it will be a while before enough information is known to fully warrant a separate article and a trim of the main one. Nonetheless, if you're looking for some pointers, I would review the work done at Loki (TV series) and Daredevil (TV series) to see how an overview article for a multi-season show can be handled. Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

So Trailblazer101, from what I've seen, the development section should be expanded a bit. And I also understand that the information added to the main article should be transferred to the corresponding season's draft, and if necessary, added to my sandbox so that when the drafts are published, I simply add my sandbox to the main article, right? Thanks with the help :) Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Born Again season 3

Hello again, I don't know why you had to bring up third-party sourced, when I'm someone who usually provides templates for users to add, or I add them myself, again questioning my editing. If you read it, the problem in the discussion was that the user wasn't adding any source at any point, and I added one that's temporarily considered reliable (although Bethel still uses Getty Images as its source in the Season 2 article). I spent some time looking for a better one, but since I couldn't find one, I decided to use Getty Images until tomorrow, when either I or another user adds a better source. I'm mentioning this again because, in a way, I'm being called out again, and in this case, for something unfair that wasn't wrong, especially considering the trouble the other user was causing by not wanting to add any sources.

And I want to make it clear that I'm not sending this with bad intentions; I simply think I've been questioned in the discussion without being asked anything. Marco camino 10 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I meant no disrespect at all. I was just stating in general what would be good to do in the long run. It was not directed at anyone in particular, and certainly not meant to convey any distrust or anything of that nature. I just got back from a long day of work, so maybe I should take some time for myself before jumping right back into the swing of things. I often forget how my messages may be interpreted, so that is entirely on me. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. As I said, I didn't mean any harm with the comment. And well, after a tough day like you mentioned, a slightly less polite tone wouldn't have bothered me at all, since we all get affected by those days. It's also possible that I was more irritated because the user I was arguing with, besides refusing to listen to the adding sources necessity despite repeated explanations, was disrespectful to me several times. Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Average Socialite

You may call them unreliable, but everytime someone posted them regarding premiere dates and got reverted, every single time the premiere dates that they have reported for every LA premiere have turned out true. KingArti (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

That may be so, but that site has previously been determined to not be a reputable source, so it cannot be used. We'll know the exact premiere date and location closer to release. There is no rush to put information out there. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

DC Universe (franchise)

for Recurring characters can you add both bride and weasel, both are confirmed for creature commandos s2 https://ew.com/creature-commandos-finale-indira-varma-bride-future-exclusive-8771570 https://bsky.app/profile/jamesgunn.bsky.social/post/3lgvodnahrk2k also s2 releasing in 2026 according to gunn https://www.instagram.com/p/DTnnl8zgNW2/ Mr.peacehunter (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll see what can be added from those sources. It is typically preferred that a recurring table includes the actors, not just when we know the characters will next appear. As for the release, do you happen to have a direct link to where Gunn said the second season would release in 2026? I have seen that around social media but have only found Gunn's comment saying that it would release "When we’re done animating the new season which is in production now". — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

2027 not 2026 my bad https://www.reddit.com/r/DCU_/comments/1qfuvjl/creature_commandos_season_2_confirmed_for_2027/?share_id=rQZJgyN66rBpejF8MVCeM&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1 Mr.peacehunter (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi, I'm writing to let you know that I replied to your comment by mistake, thinking it was my talk page. I honestly don't know how it happened. Best regards. Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even see that. No worries. That anon has a tendency to make these excessive edits, and I know they are admittedly frustrating. I would suggest trying to beat them to the punch and include a summarized version somewhere more relevant, perhaps in the "Writing" section? — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think later today I can summarize the information so we can put an end to this annoying situation, because for the last two days practically all the edits have been based on this. And I think adding it to the "Writing" section is perfect; basically, it's something I already told the user, that since it's a "plot point", it was more appropriate than putting it in the character description. Thanks and best regards. Marco camino 10 (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Trailblazer101, I've already added the summarized information in the "Writing" section, to let you now. Marco camino 10 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'm in the process of catching up on a lot of stuff in my watchlist, so I haven't had time to mull over all the Daredevil developments yet, but I'm sure it is much better than it was before. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, when you have time, you could see it and if you believe anything should be changed. Thank you for your help. Marco camino 10 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Errase a draft

Hi Trailblazer101, I'm writing because I don't know who the admin is on this Wikipedia. To explain, on the Spanish Wikipedia, the admins are known as "bibliotecarios," and I know some of them, but on this Wikipedia, I have no idea of any admin. I'm asking because I'd like to delete a draft of the Gen V series, Draft:Gen V season 3, since it's been canceled and there won't be a third season. Thanks for the help. Marco camino 10 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10: I'm not familiar with the other language wikis, but most drafts are not deleted for any specific reason unless they are stale by 6 months, per the WP:G13 deletion criteria. There is no harm in leaving them, especially if they go abandoned. You are always free to redirect them to an applicable parent article if you think it merits that (ie to keep any relevant editing history or to point readers to the preferred destination) and you don't want to necessarily wait, but then it would be less likely to be deleted. I hope that helps clear it up for ya! Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Superman

Hello!

Just a quick question about this revert. Is aligning images on the right per MOS:PORTRAIT a MOS:VAR issue? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS:VAR is clear that there are many different styles given by the MOS, and MOS:PORTRAIT states it may be preferable to have images be right-aligned and directional. However, that is up to editorial discretion, and your edit went against the longstanding WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for how the article was structured, which is why I reverted it. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to contest the revert. However, please be aware that MOS:PORTRAIT states that it is preferable, not that it may be preferable, to align images of people and animals so they face inwards. It is one word, but in my mind the meaning is completely different. If the sentence said "may be preferable", it would need an "if" clause, detailing the conditions under which it may be preferable. I'm not saying the "is preferable" clause overrides implicit consensus, because "preferable" is not "should" or "must be", I'm just saying that the current phrasing seems to be stronger than "may be".

If I'm interpreting the MOS incorrectly, please let me know. Also, if the clause "is preferable" is too strong, perhaps we should consider changing the MOS to say "may be preferable"? That clause affects how I edit, and I might edit differently if it was worded differently. Just looking to hear your thoughts—I'm not taking issue with your revert, or trying to start an argument. 😊

Thanks for your time. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I could have worded that better, as I know phrasing does matter. I've known some editors to take the MOS at point blank as gospel, though I find that it bodes down to some degree of interpretation. I think the MOS may not be as clear in what is more required and what is strongly suggested but not as strictly enforced. I am happy to have a wider discussion on the interpretation and application of the MOS, and I know semantics is a major factor we have to consider. I take the preferable wording as a good suggestion but not something that is really enforced, and in the end, the accessibility concerns are not without their merit. I try to have each article maintain a consistent structure and flow, which is sometimes restricted by what the MOS is a bit too unclear or lenient on. I have had some Good article reviewers tell me to move every image or media element to the right side according to the MOS, but I have never seen it be something that is a strong requirement. I personally think it applies on a case-by-case basis, dependent on the contents at hand and the needs of the article so that it best suites our readers. I don't entirely agree with the structure of the article as it presently is, and it could change, but I don't think realigning the images to where some were smaller than others or were inserted more into the body of text is the right call. Again, I'm open to re-evaluating the article's structure to find a compromise that works for all. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, that is helpful.

When you say, "I take the preferable wording as a good suggestion but not something that is really enforced, and in the end, the accessibility concerns are not without their merit", what are the accessibility concerns you're talking about? Does it have to do with MOS:IMAGELOC and the fact that left-aligned images sometimes present layout problems on certain devices? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Correct, yes. I just didn't recall what the name was for it. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#RfC about name

I have opened this RfC but I do not want to take to canvassing. Hope there is a legitimate way to attract more comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to worry. I have given my two cents at the RfC, with two proposals should it move forward. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Hello Trailblazer101, I'm writing to ask about something that's been bothering me, as I don't quite understand it. Although I've seen it before, I recently saw it again today in Man of Tomorrow with the Variety sources. My question is why sometimes a source is listed as "cite web" but other times as "cite magazine", as is the case in Man of Tomorrow, where Matthew Lillard's source is "cite web" and Milly Alcock's is "cite magazine". I'm also wondering why some sources are always, or almost always, listed as one, while others alternate between the two. Thanks in advance for any help. Marco camino 10 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Certainly. There was consensus established at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 85#RfC: Should Citation bot use cite web, or cite magazine, or cite news? in favor of using {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite news}} for online periodicals featuring content not in their respective print editions. The template documentation for {{Cite web}} states it should only be used when not covered by any other citation template. It has been inconsistently applied over the years due to some concerns that such templates should only apply to their print periodicals. I have also seen sites like The Hollywood Reporter (a magazine) and Deadline Hollywood use {{Cite news}}, but that usage has not been thoroughly vetted. I am admittedly indifferent to how the citations are formatted as long as it remains consistent within the articles (which is something I can rectify). Variety itself is a news magazine, so I believe either of the three citation templates are applicable. It does largely come down to editorial preference versus longstanding traditional practices. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)