User talk:Trailblazer101

Hello, I apologize for writing so often these past few days, but I'd like to get your opinion as an experienced editor. With the Lanterns series, this is the second time I've included media reviews, something I first did completely for Spider-Man: Brand New Day. I'm simply asking, if you've read them, if you think they're good, or if I'm missing anything, or something else you have noted. It's worth noting that to avoid a purely positive/negative approach, I always try to take something from both things from each source. Something I noticed with Brand New Day is that, after a few days, I should also search and include articles from reliable media outlets that compile a lot of critics so I can add that consensus to the introduction and other sections (please let me know if I'm wrong about this; that's the impression I got from Brand New Day). Thank you very much in advance. Marco camino 10 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Marco camino 10: Pardon my belated response, but I just wanted to say I have seen this message and I am just getting back to reviewing several articles on my watchlist. I haven't taken an in-depth look at the Lanterns article, but from a quick read through, it sounds on par with other articles I have worked on. I think you handled and conveyed the neutrality really well, and once all the episodes have released, there should be more full season reviews we can dissect from for a broad critical consensus. I encourage you to review the critical response for WandaVision and Loki season 1 and Loki season 2, which are pretty good examples of this section structure. I do plan on expanding the article with more production-specific details in due time, and while I typically stay away from handling individual reviews in favor of critical summaries, I think from my experience that you did a nice job thus far. Good work, Marco, as per usual. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Trailblazer101, thank you so much for your reply, first of all. And then, one of these days I'll read the articles you mentioned so I can make in the future higher-quality Reception sections. But I have a question: When the individual reviews come out, should I add them, and then, when the critical and seasonal reviews come out, should I add these replacing all the individual ones, or should I keep some of those as well? I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself correctly. And I'm also looking forward to seeing what you add to Lanterns; I've already seen, for example, your update on The People v. Gorilla Grodd, and I think it's an incredible improvement in writing, information placement, and so on. Thank you so much for your reply, best regards :) Marco camino 10 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why thank you! As for your reception questions, the initial reviews are good to add as they come out because they cover them in the moment, and once reliable sources cover more broad critical consensus, a critical response summary may be appended at the top of the Critical response section. There is not really a formal system that I am aware of, but I find it good practice to then find retrospective reviews of the entire series or season after it has concluded. An example structure would be as follows; First paragraph: Critical response summary from multiple sources, followed by the aggregator data and summary; a balance of individual reviews; and then retrospective reviews of the television work in full. I hope that makes sense. MOS:TVRECEPTION delves into this some more for the main series article and the season articles, as well as for specific ways to handle the viewership statistics. Some good examples of critical response summaries are those at Superman (2025 film), Captain America: Brave New World, and Thunderbolts* (all of which were achieved through consensus), as well as the blurbs I primarily wrote for The Batman (film), The Odyssey (2026 film), and The Mandalorian and Grogu. For the critical response summary, I tend to look at Rotten Tomatoes and several other third-party outlets. I hope this helps. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:22, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Understood Trailblazer101. During these days, when I have some time before starting my second year of university, I'll read the articles that you have provided me and the reference types that could be used for higher quality. I'll also read the MOS you provided. If I have any questions about this, I'll ask. And again, thank you so much for all your help; I really appreciate it. Best regards :) Marco camino 10 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Trailblazer101, I'm here to ask for a second opinion about this source included in the Supergirl article. After reading it, it seems to me that its structure suggests the journalist isn't being objective or simply reporting on the AI ​​situation regarding Lobo's design. This is evident from the excessive use of the word "slop", both in relation to AI design and even to describe superhero movies in recent years. I also don't find it reliable that the included reactions are taken from people on Reddit or X, especially since these are people and reviews that don't analyze the situation but only offer harsh criticism. I don't know what you think, given your experience and knowledge of which sources are acceptable, but it seems to me that this content isn't the most objective if we want to inform the readers. And by the way, since I don't know if you've had a chance to review the article lately, it doesn't seem to me that there are either sources or such a huge controversy to warrant adding a separate subsection to the article like it has been done. Thank you very much in advance. Marco camino 10 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Marco camino 10: Thank you for reaching out and bringing this to my attention. I was actually going to do some copy-editing of that article after I noticed the over-abundance of undue weight focus on the AI Lobo design. (Not sure why the crew and Momoa used it for such an obvious design.) I haven't heard of Futurism before, though their news coverage reads like sensationalist stories rather than objective reporting, as you have described. Most websites like this that rely on user-generated responses are of questionable reliability, and I find that its own use of AI generated art in this article calling out AI usage, in a sort of "gotcha" way, is rather hypocritical and a bad look in terms of their editorial standards. I would remove that reference, as well as the Tech Times one which is also unreliable. The sheer presence of such a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION borders on WP:RECENTISM. A simple mention of how the crew used generative AI to design concept art for Lobo's appearance based on Moma's likeness and how it was scrutinized should suffice in the pre-production section alone. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Secret Invasion, and Loki season 2 have some good examples on how to handle coverage of perceived and genuine AI usage. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I had been thinking about for a while cleaning up and potentially nominating Jeff Sneider for WP:GA, and now the most recent controversies surrounding "mister The InSneider" himself inspired me to do a proper WikiDragon pass at his article. Wanted to ask you (and maybe your other talk page stalkers) if you might do me a solid with a once-over with some fresh eyes on the article before I nominate it, while I let this nonsense he's propagating regarding Inde Navarrette blow over? Thanks again, Trail. BarntToust 00:16, 5 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@BarntToust: Pardon my belated response. I haven't had much time to rummage through the article itself, but its recent improvements are pretty compelling. Of course I would say a GA nomination may be in the cards once this all blows over (gosh, I wish Sneider would just keep his mouth shut). I can definitely take a look at it when I have more time for a thorough review, though if you want, you may request a WP:Peer review which are usually good precursors to a GA nomination, especially gaining an outside perspective. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:41, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Peer review sounds like a compelling idea. Maybe I'll have it go through there instead of throwing it in the GARC headfirst like I usually do. Definitely the most controversial article I've primarily written, and I like being thorough.

Thank you for your input at the WP:RSN, I truly appreciate your perspective, and I'm happy to see you and others supporting the idea of independent journalism as the alternative to the oh-so-ever-declining legacy media. I've personally sort of given up on supporting Sneider as the posterboy for the idea of EXPERTSPS on Wikipedia, but I think I will be watching Josh Horowitz on his Happy Sad Confused podcast more often for some of the better independent journalism, as his tenure at MTV News and other productions should establish him as an EXPERTSPS good for use on Wikipedia. On a side note, I kind of want to go back and see his James Gunn episode last year for Superman, and maybe his Milly Alcock episode a couple months ago for Supergirl and the snippet covered for Man of Tomorrow. Hope he does interviews for Man of Tomorrow next year...

Maybe I should pitch accrediting Horowitz (his Happy Sad Confused podcast specifically) at the sourcing list for the MCU WikiProject? Eventually discussing at RSN for the WP:RSPLIST? I know you and others who frequent the MCU WikiProject have been big supporters of EXPERTSPS so maybe a consensus-building discussion is in order. Anywho, it's great to speak with you once more. Happy trails, Trail! BarntToust 03:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@BarntToust: I think Horowitz and his podcast is a decently reputable source, so I doubt there would be any reservations about including him as a reliable resource for MCU articles. I haven't seen him actually publish any news pieces on his own, unlike Sneider, considering Horowitz conducts most of his interviews on video and gets covered by more mainstream third-party sources than Sneider. It is rather unfortunate that the bureaucracy of Wikipedia complicates giving credence and a platform to the independent and citizen journalists of today. The whole EXPERTSPS situation is underwhelming, though I understand opposing editors' rationale even if I do not agree with it entirely. I still think the additional considerations I brought up is a good practice to abide by when covering or using any reports from Sneider, regardless of the consensus. Best of luck on the GA nom, though! You have crafted a well-written article.

Going off on a little tangent here, but I truly wish more independent voices could be heard and included as sources, especially at a time when journalism and free speech are under threat and critical thinking and passive, civil, constructive debate and communication are lacking. I commend those who speak freely even when it puts themselves in jeopardy, and providing the global audience of Wikipedia with the free, vast knowledge available is a truly remarkable honor to have as a civil servant of sorts, and not something I take lightly. I love reading newsletters and reports from the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Terry Moran, the folks at The Ankler and Puck such as Matthew Belloni and Joanna Robinson, Scott Mendelson, Sean Robbins, Alex Werpin at CNBC, Matt Stoller, James B. Stewart, David A. Gross, Travis Clark, and Molly White, to name a few. I haven't personally been following Sneider's reports unless it pertains to something I am interested in, but I just wish he kept his opinions to himself and did the job his subscribers (myself occasionally among them, but not presently) have paid him to do. I understand why the Marvel Studios and DC subreddits have banned Sneider as a source, but Wikipedia has to take things more delicately and thoroughly than social media platforms, and that requires further deliberation, analysis, and not jumping with recentism bias or by our emotions, however valid they may be, in the name of neutrality, impartiality, and factual information gathering and dissemination.

As someone who has dabbled with independent journalism in my own defunct Substack newsletter, I have found it more preferable to read sites like Gizmodo, Kotaku, Total Film, /Film, TheWrap (especially for their investigative reports into Valnet), The Playlist, Jordan Ruimy's World of Reel, and Dark Horizons than the Penske monopoly trades of THR, Deadline, and Variety (they make it almost impossible to read their articles without a message to subscribe to their newsletter or print magazines obscuring the whole page, even though I am subscribed! I scoff whenever they label themselves "Independent Journalism"!) and archive-blocking sites like Barry Diller's Entertainment Weekly. I hold those sites to a higher standard and have been disappointed by them on numerous occasions, especially when they made Nia DaCosta a scapegoat and minced words on societal issues. I try to ensure the articles I work on use the highest quality sources available as a result. I have been meaning to catch up on interviews from Happy Sad Confused, but Hot Ones tends to pique my interest slightly more Ha ha. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

A hearty "amen" to you on these words that hit the fading legacy media and the emerging new and independent media straight on the head. I had no idea Kareen Abdul-Jabbar published a newsletter. I too hate to see that Sneider, one of the most prominent and objectively résumé-qualified independent journalists working today, just has to be "like this", y'know. We must indeed vet those independent reporters without editorial oversight with more thorough accountability on our own dime, and apply more considerations for applicability, but they are definitely broadly conceptually usable as sources. I think exceptional sources like Horowitz's podcast and Belloni's publication being used across Wikipedia are a good starting place and can establish the idea of "here's someone who has professionally established themselves at prior publications, now publishes outside the thralls of the establishment, and can actually behave themselves", and then after they are set in the halls of the RSPLIST, we can start extending the EXPERTSPS more freely to others.

For better and for worse, Sneider's seen on Wikipedia and even generally as a posterboy for independent journalism. I've tried my best to put forth the point to separate the argument of "declaring Sneider unreliable for his controversial behavior" from "declaring self-published independent journalism as a cardinal Wikipedia sin according to reporting that so much as refers to a living person" in the RSP Noticeboard discussion; I just think we need to hash out the difference between reporting on a person in a strictly professional/business context, and reporting concerning — especially that which is contentious content — patently personal information. I honestly think we're going to have to request an independent close to sort through the consensus of that terribly divisive thing on RSP Noticeboard.

P.S. if you haven't seen Kyle Chandler and Aaron Pierre's episode on Hot Ones, it is an absolute riot! Lanterns is really selling me on the DCU. Can't wait for Man of Tomorrow next year, maybe I'll get back into editing DCU articles with you and the others. BarntToust 01:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh absolutely. I think the likes of Horowitz, Belloni, and beyond may serve as great examples and precursors to actually refine EXPERTSPS and the rather restrictive self-publishing source policy based on the previous discussions on the matter. However, it seems Wikipedia is not ready for such a chance in precedent at this time, though I hope in the name of the free media that they come around to this ever-changing landscape in due time. Knowledge is power, too much power corrupts and deludes, but thoughtful and constructive, forward-thinking discussions may lead to a more inclusive, informative, and adaptable encyclopedia, should we collectively embrace the benefit of information over editorialized mandates and bureaucratic squabbles. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sneider RSN discussion were closed as "no consensus", though I am preparing for whether it closes as "generally unreliable", which does not prohibit his use as a source; rather, it strongly discourages it, contrary to some misconceptions. That is why my conviction has not been as strong as others, though deprecation or blacklisting should not be on the table as a response to petty social media drama, which I generally just find to be ridiculous. There is a fine line between professional news reporting on breaking casting deals or other hiring, business decisions, etc. and sensationalist gossip that the likes of the Valnet-sites, Page Six Hollywood, and AI-enshitified sites like CNET, Newsweek, BuzzFeed, and all the bullshit espoused by SEO-focused social media accounts and hungry chatbots. I do think we are getting close to a point where most participants have articulated their points and are reaching an impasse. I would just make sure WP:WHENCLOSE is followed should we need to request an independent close, which may be likely unless an admin is able to discern an impartial determination.

As for Hot Ones, I did catch Kyle Chandler and Aaron Pierre's episode and I loved it! Their chemistry is off the charts, and both their castings are hands-down stellar. I am having a blast with Lanterns and adore both of those actors! I will definitely be watching Aaron's career closely, and I have a personal adoration of Kyle Chandler as he is my namesake. I am considering getting the Ralph Lauren deck jacket he wears in the series because I love that style, but it is rather pricey. I also most recently watched the Hot Ones episode with Inde Navarrette (she's a hoot, can't wait to see her as Rogue), and I loved the Sinners and Deadpool & Wolverine ones when those first came out! — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It certainly is similar to the game of "separating the art from the artist" when arguing for the professional merits of Sneider in face of his personal controversies. I have confidence a reasonable reading of the consensus will be drawn. If you do end up springing for the Ralph Lauren jacket, we've definitely got to expand the design subsection of the article and humbly ask you to snap a pic of it for illustration! I'll have to check out Inde Navarrette's episode of Hot Ones next.

Thank you for your help on the GAN for Sneider's article, it is going much smoother than I anticipated! BarntToust 15:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries at all! Oh, the jacket is so tempting to get! I would be more than happy to cover the costume designs of this series, especially due to my love of the Green Lantern: Earth One graphic novels that it was partially inspired by; that reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I have personally argued the separation of Sneider's legitimate reports and his social media conduct, though we obviously have to hold him accountable even he does slip up, which seems to be more recurring and overshadowing his actual reporting. I did file a closure request at WP:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Jeff Sneider / The InSneider, so we shall see what comes of that. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Trailblazer101, it's been a while, I hope you're doing well. I'm writing to ask you about two things: the first is about independent sources. Wikipedia requires the use of independent sources for added information, but Marvel and Star Wars allow adding information from their websites, Marvel.com and StarWars.com; I can understand why this is allowed with Marvel but not with Star Wars. Could you clarify this, or is it related to a past discussion? The second question concerns how much information the anonymous user ~2026-40389-27 adds and how persistent they tend to be. I told them, from their first anonymous account when they started editing the second season of Born Again,that I knew their intention was to contribute, but they have ignored all my messages. And I'm not just saying this because of my own edits, which are quite numerous, but I've seen several other users undoing their edits—I don't remember if you have too—for adding huge amounts of information, most of it unnecessary and irrelevant, or even for smaller texts where a large portion of the information is also meaningless and could be contained in one or two lines (like in this case today). I mention this mainly because, at least with me, when I've sent him a message, he ignored me. I'm wondering if it's possible to at least request protection for the article on the production of Doomsday and Secret Wars, since of all the Marvel Wikipedia articles this one tends to make the most edits, especially because I don't know how to do it on the English Wikipedia. If you have another solution, I'd be happy to hear it. Thank you very much, and best regards. Marco camino 10 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Heyyo! I'm doing well. Keeping myself fairly busy, so I'm just trying to pace myself. As always, I am glad to help.

For the sourcing, Wikipedia usually has a preference for third-party sourcing as it provides further verification as opposed to relying on a first-party website for the information. I know some Marvel articles tend to be lenient on this front, but I don't think there has been any formal local consensus that is anything but implicit. I usually try to find a secondary source that verifies the contents from Marvel.com or StarWars.com, though I know sometimes it is easier said than done. Is there a particular instance with a Star Wars article you would like to inquire about?

As for the temp account user, I have noticed their repeated editing and behavior patterns, which stem from a series of Peruvian dynamic IP range-based anonymous accounts. I have warned them of their excessive content additions much to no avail, as I have noticed you have, as well, though it is unfortunately complicated to get prevent temp accounts from hopping to new sessions and continuing their edits, as this one has routinely done. I will look into requesting page protection for the article, as it seems there have been some unconstructive edits in the past few months. If you haven't yet, I would suggest looking to install WP:Twinkle. It's a very handy resource tool that provides page protection requests, editor vandalism reports, and other communication options that prove useful, especially when combating vandalism or disruptive editing. It also provides an option to "rollback", or revert mass edits in one sequence, without needing the WP:Rollback user right. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:22, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Trailblazer101,

Regarding the sources, it's not just a specific case of a Star Wars article; it's just that in recent months I've noticed it's used much more than when I started editing this Wikipedia. And even though it can sometimes be better hidden, these are still articles that talk about their own projects, and whether it's the writing style, word order, or even just an adjective, the bias is more noticeable.

About the user, I just read the Twinkle entry and have already added the tools I'm interested in, several of which I also use on the Spanish Wikipedia (I didn't know Twinkle was available on this wiki too). And in your opinion, if I requested it, do you think there would be a chance I could get rollback permission? I ask because when I click rollback on Twinkle, it doesn't save; I've checked twice, and I don't know why. Thanks in advance, best regards :) Marco camino 10 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I gotcha. It would probably be best to inquire about the sources at WT:STARWARS. As for Twinkle, it requires a pop-up screen with some questions and an optional summary to be filled out. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Trailblazer101, I hope you're doing well. I'm writing to ask if a note should be added regarding the inclusion of the phrase "The film has received X reviews from critics" in the introduction, as this is the sixth time it's been added. I assume it's because most people don't read the edit history and therefore have not seen the explanation that it's not allowed without sources that include that reflect a consensus among critics in those things. I don't know your opinion, but it's something that keeps getting removed every single day. Best regards. Marco camino 10 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Marco camino 10: I can understand the expectation from some that a purported review summary be added upon release. While they may be done in good faith, most are derived from social media reactions and do not abide by MOS:ACCLAIMED. I would advise to try and find "review roundup" sources that surmise the overall reception to stave off continued additions of an unsupported summary. I have found the following sources that provide some summary of the reviews via THR, Rotten Tomatoes (including the top blurb summary), CinemaBlend, and Forbes, though I expect more may become available in the following weeks. Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Since I see that it has been re-added, I will address this tomorrow—I'm currently having Wi-Fi issues where I live, which prevents me from using my laptop (is what I use for these types of edits, as they involve more than just a simple undo or a minor change). I will use several of the sources you provided to incorporate the phrase. Also, given your point that many people add the information based on what they see on social media without actually reading the article and the sources, we could perhaps include a note clarifying that this phrase stems from the consensus presented with the sources that are included in the reception.

Also, if you don't mind—and provided you've had a chance to read it—I'd love to hear your thoughts on the opening-weekend box office analysis I put together; it's the first one I've ever done. I'm trying to get more involved and contribute more of my own research each time, even if it’s just through these small steps. I plan to expand the "Critical Response" section tomorrow or Wednesday, using reliable sources like THR, Variety, Empire, and a few others, so that it's not so empty and includes a broader range of critical opinions. Thank you very much for your response. Marco camino 10 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I haven't seen Clayface yet as I have been rather busy myself, so I haven't been thoroughly reviewing the article itself, though the BO coverage and individual critic statements present thus far are a good start to build off of. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Marco camino 10: I have gone ahead and added quick review summary blurb based on what the RT and THR roundups state, because there wasn't much applicable material to go off of from some of the others, which mostly reposted social media posters rather than analyzing them for us. (Not sure how Penske can pass those articles off as journalism when all it is just SEO clickbait to keep their ad revenue up.) — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and I also plan to add in some information on the nightclub scene and an image of its filming location given there is some coverage about it out there. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Trailblazer, I've read your update—thanks for adding the summary of the critical consensus, complete with sources. I ran into some connection issues again yesterday, and because of university commitments, I haven't been able to make many significant edits—aside from the section I put together on Clayface. As for clickbait headlines, it's an unfortunate reality—even among more serious media outlets—that they're used to attract readers. It's a topic that comes up constantly in many of my journalism subjects this year, right alongside discussions about sensationalism and similar practices. I also appreciate you sharing your plans; the nightclub scene—which was very well-received by the audience—didn't even cross my mind when I was adding information about Aaron Paul's role in the film. Thanks again for everything—best regards! Marco camino 10 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply