Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:14, 12 August 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Horror High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Media franchises Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

moderated discussion

I'm going to attempt some moderation here.

NJZombie and StarTrekker, could one/both of you state as briefly as humanly possible what you believe is the ONE most important or crucial edit you're suggesting, along with the minimum number of necessary sources you think best support that edit? (No need to include any explanation for me; I do not need to understand the content dispute.) Valereee (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding a history section which details 1) how the 1930s began an era of sound horror for Universal, 2) how the studio began to cross over their popular series, and 3) how the after the end of the initial film series the studio has continued to merchandised and market the monster characters in all kinds of media and products.★Trekker (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

While I do think your thoughts on this are well intentioned, I'd suggest against it because you will not find the material you are hunting for. What you are asking for part 1 and 2 is exactly what I intended to do when I first came to re-writing this article. I found very little backing them up Mainly because they are so loosely connected even as their on namesake series. Take a look at The Invisible Man (film series) or Dracula (Universal film series). Even those films are connected extremely vaguely in terms of characters and narrative. Film production in the past is not as documented as it has been in the later years so finding the how and why things were done in that form came up relatively uneventful when I expanded upon House of Frankenstein. They literally just announced the film and what character would or would not be included. That was all I was able to muster up. I appreciate you guys trying to make this work, but if you have read these individual articles, you are looking for material that is currently non-existent. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to have egg on my face with this, but on further research (apologies for reading the above, but it is relevant to anyone just reading this conversation as well), this book seems to have a wealth of filling in the gaps we are trying to adapt here @StarTrekker. here. I'll try to write something up in a draft and see what you guys think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The only crucial edit I felt was necessary, I made, and that was clarifying that it is indeed a media franchise. I think the article could use some cleanup, or even a rewrite, showing more examples of products and places the brand has been used but the sources would depend on how many items were added. NJZombie (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

So @NJZombie: and @StarTrekker: and @Valereee: and anyone else interested, using the source I found above, I've tried to create something that I think could pass as satisfying for the lot of us. It needs work and copy-editing, but I think it is a good start in how we can actually get some meat and potatoes into this article. I've started a draft of it User:Andrzejbanas/sandbox/Universal Monsters here. I don't think this is complete or final or anything, but feel confident it addresses the issues we've had. I'm genuinely glad we all stuck it through with this article, as I don't know when I would have found this article otherwise that has really addressed many of our concerns. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about adding this into the existing article, go ahead. You don't need anybody's approval to add additional sourced information. Once again though, I don't feel it needs to be a separate or new article. It really has nothing to do with my only concern, which is stated clearly above. NJZombie (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh i'm aware, I'm happy to add it, I'm just curious if it's assisting in what we are doing. With this information, I feel like, its less likely it needs a separate entity that works out. Also, as I was accused to WP:OWN, I feel like it would benefit us everyone to discuss before I make more bold edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"Holy..." is what I have to say about this. The Universal Classic Monsters is a franchise, and is called as much by various reliable sources. In addition to the fact that the movies were retroactively given the label by Universal Pictures (and released various media which should also be included in this article), it's also worth noting that any time there is a remake/reboot/reimagining of one of the studio's monster characters all of the sources note that they are characters from the Universal Monsters franchise. The "Universal Horror" brand (which they started with another series of home video releases) is entirely separate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey DisneyMetalHead, I've written a draft here with some new sources I've found regarding this. If you or anyone else could weigh in on it, I think that would be great. User:Andrzejbanas/sandbox/Universal Monsters. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So its been a few days and outside NJZombie and Valereee, no body has really seemed to comment on the addition I was suggesting. I'm going to try and fine tune it a bit and see if we can include the information we want/need for it. I just hope everyone respects that I am trying to reach out to people and am not taking ownership of this article when I make bold changes. If we don't communicate, I'm not sure what I can do to make sure people's issues are addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to be bold. I don't see anyone here saying bold>revert>discuss = ownership. What I see is people saying bold>revert>sealion until everyone else has given up in frustration = ownership. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into debates about that as I don't think I can say anything here that will make anyone disagree with a pre-conceived notion. If there is no further discussion about the content of the page, I'll try to add some of it later today. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Haven't hard from many of you, but I've expanded the article with new information that should clarify some details. Hope this satisfies people. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think much has been improved, but I think a move to the shorter name Universal Monsters would be good.★Trekker (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I'm not sure if it's so long that it requires a re-name and maybe would prefer it to still have the "Classic" in the title. Most of the home video line adopts the term "Classic" when they get their official branding, so I think not including it would nearly be as wild as dropping the term "Universal". Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: you referred to me various times in this thread, but didn't tag me correctly.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article looks much better than it did with just minimal paragraphs. That being said, I believe it could use a great deal of expansion (detailing the monsters and who played them for example). Why? The franchise is noteworthy for a number of situation, including the iconic status of the various characters.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You are really obsessed with cast and crew. This would be fine but as established by the prose, the Univeral Classics Monsters is not a typical "franchise". It only became one on home video and as evidenced by the article by multiple sources, it only became promoted as one in the 1990s. It's not about an ongoing plot. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so an long lasting cast and crew that just lists them is not what Misplaced Pages is for. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not nearly as obsessed as you are with insisting that the franchise only began with a 1990s era home video release, which remains untrue. With a simple Google search, I've found products using Universal Monsters being used well before the video release you keep bringing up. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Remco toys released figures that clearly note them Official Universal Movie Monsters, one of the many name variants of Universal Monsters that have been used for decades now. Merchandising, using the Universal Monsters name, began back in the 1960s which can clearly be seen in items such as this and this. There may have been a licensing boom in the 1990s but it did not suddenly begin then. NJZombie (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Genuine question -- Why are you combative towards other editors? I am not "obsessed" with anything. Rather, it seems like you have preferences that you believe override a formatting standard which every other contributor is trying to point out to you. As pointed out by @NJZombie: the franchise did not begin in the 1990s, but regardless of its date -- it is an established and well-known film franchise at this point with various media.

My initial comment was that you had referenced me various times in your thread but never with the correct formatting/spelling -- so I was not pinged to your proposal conversations.

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The information I've gathered may not have caught up with marketing, but the article no longer states its just a home video line with new information I've dug up. While those images do make good points, how do we move forward to get an actual "start" date? If we don't have some written sources, I don't know if we can cite what could be very well be a bootleg lunch box. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The Six-Year Story of the Universal Monsters Misplaced Pages Page

Hey everyone.

I'm not an editor, so feel free to delete this, but I have to get this message out to the people behind this article. You deserve to know about it.

My name is Jake, creator and host of the Universal Monsters Podcast. Typically, we cover news relating to the subject and bring our own expertise every week. Our latest episode is a departure, and it involves this article.

I got in to the Universal Monsters in 2018 when the page was clear and concise: The films were laid out in a simple, effective way, and everything was color-coded by what characters overlapped in each other's movies, featured a cast listing at the bottom of the page with actors reprising certain characters, and listed the remakes Universal had produced of all of their films, from 1979's Dracula all the way up to 2017's The Mummy (the latest at the time). This was the basis for our entire "MonsterThon" show (type it in YouTube and we're the first result), and it acted as our guide as we went down that journey with our small, but dedicated fanbase.

In 2018, the page vanished with little explanation why.

For years, I've been following the drama at talk:Universal_Monsters and watched the drama unfold, which almost everybody in the Universal Monsters fandom doesn't even realize exists. The page had been consolidated to an embarrassing one-paragraph summary akin to what you'd find on a movie's RottenTomatoes page, with the entire history of the Universal Monsters media franchise either gutted entirely, or distilled down to a handful of sentences. The reality is that these movies and the characters in them were a part of film history and had a lasting cultural impact on the direction of horror cinema, even to this very day with movies, TV shows, books, dramas, and a litany of other materials constantly being made off of this one, cohesive collection of intellectual properties.

The reason I've posted is because our latest episode actually covers the full timeline of events and goes over the edits in this page with a fine-toothed comb, highlighting the significant conversations/debates behind-the-scenes, and singling out one individual in particular seemingly responsible for the past six years: Andrzejbanas. We reported as fair and as diplomatic as we could, but we also didn't sugarcoat anything along the way.

Like I said, feel free to delete this if you feel that's what's right. I'm not an editor, and I have no interest in editing this article - not that I even could if I wanted to since it's been heavily gatekept since 2018. But I felt as though everybody involved deserved to be aware of this episode, as several of you are mentioned in it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoSBX9WjfS4

Thanks, and I genuinely hope the best version of this article can one day make a return. I’m seeing a lot of progress in recent months. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasefixthispage (talk • contribs)

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand this is very interesting and I do think that happenings on Misplaced Pages should be studied and recorded by interested persons for future research. On the other hand I am always uncomfortable when anything involving me or my friends get publicity. I just hope the episode is respectful and understands that none of us (including Andrzejbanas who I have disagreed with) have acted in bad faith.★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pleasefixthispage: So I have listened to the podcast now, and you seemed to be pretty civil about the whole thing, so thanks for that. (Tho the one time you refered to me you called me a "he", which I am not.) And all your points about what has happened here are pretty much correct.

What @Andrzejbanas: was doing is called on Misplaced Pages "stonewalling" and "sealioning". He didn't (and still doesn't) technically hold power over the page but he argued for so long and so much that everyone else got tired out and kinda gave up. The reason it was finally put to a stop was because he had an ANI (Administrators Noticeboard Incidents) against him because he was doing similar things on bigger horror articles and people finally got tired of it and put in the effort into reporting him to the admins who told him to knock it off or risk being banned from editing horror film articles. I am glad he was not banned because despite screwing up this article he has done wonderful work on other pages.★Trekker (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy. I'm not really a fan of Wiki Drama and even cataloguing internet drama is even less of a popular topic for me. I'm glad the conclusion came to that you are more content with how the article has become (as am I, that new source has been a godsend). I've tried to search up stuff to back it up before and I'm glad it's here with sources. I'm sorry to everyone who may have struggled with me on the topics, but I'm glad that further research has made it better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In response to the post from the unregistered editor, I too am one of the individuals who has attempted to respond to User:Andrzejbanas on various articles -- but very quickly got sick and tired of trying to keep up with their constant threads/edits/deletions. I agree that the current state of the article is small and has very little details. Anyone looking at the edit threads, and/or talk pages can see that there were various editors attempting to improve this article, and while I believe the stated editor has good intentions, they have the repeated tendency to delete details (see the ongoing discussion at the released Universal Classic Horror page for The Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series) article, for a recent comparison). I personally continue to try an improve these articles, with in collaboration with various editors, whether we agree on structure or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Your improvements include removing sourced material and adding unsourced material. These aren't improvements if you can't find any sources to back you up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And here, again -- you are caught in a cycle (seemingly) of responding to other editors with ire. I have repeatedly told you that I am assuming WP:GOODFAITH, but you have a recurring habit of deleting various sections/details based on preferences. As I stated on the other talk page, add the references you have. Don't delete entire sections based on your preference for only prose. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

after watching discussions

@Andrzejbanas, I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion you are actually a net negative on this article. I'm sorry, I know you believe you are in the right, but I feel you are gatekeeping and sealioning. I am going to p-block to allow other editors to try to make some progress solving the arguments that have been going on for a half-decade. You can still contribute here on the talk. Valereee (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally understandable. I don't really have much to add to the main article at the moment but I feel like the block isn't...really going to help? I want users to edit it and I want to collaborate, I just see that as this isn't a typical franchise with repeated characters or lore attaching it (i.e: its branding as stated in the article, starts with a home video line), that I'm not sure what the other editors want to add or not as this isn't a typical film franchise, it was several films sort of established as a series decades after their inception.) I hope this makes people feel more free to edit, but I feel like I don't know how to convince folks otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Valereee (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Films section

While this article is growing back to where it was prior to the mass deletion of various sections, the current formatting of this sub-section is odd at best. While it's understood that the current table is intended to show which movies were included with the various re-releases of the movies on home video, wouldn't a format more similar to other various film series and/or franchise articles be better? Or, even in addition to what is here? A table which shows the creatives involved in these movies would be constructive in that it allows the average reader to see the credits of the various filmmakers involved (i.e.: Title, release date, director, writer(s), producers). Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think if we can write a draft. I think a list would be useful when it show cast/crew who worked between them. That said, the list of films is already kind of monstrously long (pardon the pun). Maybe write just the headings in the table you think would be good and we can find some happy medium? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Puns or not, as you pointed out the current status of the page is not in the best form. The reason its a "monstrosity" all runs right back to your frequent deletion of sections, and data in articles to meet your personal demands. As I have pointed out to you at various times the necessity to take to the talk page and/or at a source request tag (instead of deleting data) -- if you would do so, editors would perceive your intentions as leaning more towards collaboration. I will work of the film table. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to say here, but regardless of what editors say, I'm trying to go by what reliable sources state and that's all I've asked from editors. These aren't my own personal rules, per WP:LISTCRITERIA is not to just repeat information we can find on individual articles. In short, we have casts listed on other articles, and individual actor filmographies. I'm honestly wondering if my own original suggestion of just including the "big" monster films is appropriate, per " Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." in the same rule above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed film table

Classic era

A remake section would include any remakes (by Universal) of these individual movies. A section detailing in prose the "reboot" plan that was indented for Dark Universe, would give insight into what the plans were (interconnection), to what they became -- standalone movies that are modern interpretations of the characters. These sections would follow a similar format to what I have suggested above.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what this lists improves upon as it contains no sources. If you want it based on the "primary" sources, She-Wolf of London has no monsters in it and I don't think I've heard of The Hunchback of Notre Dame included in discussion or promotional material related to this series at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-j-VlKTIRo

Cast section

This article does not have anything remotely within the parameters of this kind of common element in franchise articles, but once again for the average reader -- wouldn't a cast table be helpful? Prose can always mention details above a table, but similar to other film series/franchise pages, if we include both: Recurring characters (Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, the Mummy, Invisible Man, Creature from the Black Lagoon for example), and main/primary characters (Bride of Frankenstein for example was in one movie) -- it would give constructive insight to expand this article's topic.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps of the main monsters this could be good as they are generally the more re-occuring ones. I'm leaning towards you want it with the ones that are more consistently involved with the series, (i.e: Phantom, Creature, Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride, Wolf Man, Invisible Man, etc.) and maybe not like...Sheena the ape woman. I think this would reflect what is more commonly part of the series. What specifically were you suggesting? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As I stated in my post^, I am talking about the official Universal Classic Monsters. As pointed out in my original post, the inclusion of these characters would be constructive and bring the page back to what it was originally (prior to the rat race this article has become). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, you listed them as an example, could you post like, a basic table here to see where you think we'd be going with this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Crew and production details section

This article also has nothing within these kinds of parameters. As is common on other franchise/film articles, the other production details are both: 1. notable, and 2. insightful for the average reader. By including these details on a page like this, it allows all users to see various details about each movie in one location. Further reading can be done at each page's individual article, but I don't see a reason to leave this out of the article. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

While this is common, this one I'm a bit more against as this series is huge and was only branded later. Per WP:SOURCELIST, we should reach some sort of consensus here as these probably are better expanded upon in the individual film articles if need be (Frankenstein (Universal film series) etc., otherwise I feel like we're repeating information a bit ad nauseum in comparison to listing the monsters or something which might be more unique and useful to the content of this page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

was only branded later

Please drop this already. 'Branding' from the start isn't the be-all/end-all end of a series or franchise, this thing was brought up in the video above which talked extensively abour your unreasonable demands. I don't know if you watched it like I did but I think it really summs up all the issues here. It does not seem like you have been able to truly get over the core problems you have on this issue.★Trekker (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to say, but sure, let's drop that. I'd like to focus on how detailed a cast and crew information would or should be without being trivial. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm really trying not to beat a dead horse, but I want to find some solution for when the term came to be with proper reliable sources. We have the Billboard and the academic article talking about the branding starting in the 1990s or marketing the monsters together. However, there have been decent points of people showing off items and products that promote the monsters on toys and other knick knacks from the 60s or 70s. I'm not sure how we approach this per WP:RS and WP:OR. My heart is not set on keeping the article the way it is as I once was, but I feel like ignoring the sourced content is probably its own kettle of fish. I don't think we should ignore it, but I'm not sure how we should handle it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out to you through numerous edits of others, and various statements already -- the original of the "branding" date is not the deciding factor of this article. Go watch the video that has been referenced. You may learn how it is being perceived. Administrators additionally previously notified you of how to avoid doing so. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about branding in this last paragraphs. But there has to be some standards of what films are included that can't be our own attribution (or any YouTubers honestly). Per WP:SOURCELIST, "all individual items on the list must follow Misplaced Pages's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well." I encourage you to contribute DMh, but so far your suggestions have just been to removed sourced content with...well, not sure where your information is coming from. When I ask, I get accused of sealioning. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2024

The request to rename this article to Universal Monsters has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Universal Classic Monsters → Universal Monsters – By far the common name. It was a massive mistake to have it moved years ago, I don't recal if I supported it then, but if I did (which is possible) it was probably under the delusion that we would eventually have separate articles for the classic releases, the overall grouping of the characters by Universal and the Dark Universe, hence three articles to cover everything in depth. As the Dark Universe never became a thing there is no reason to not just cover everything in the same article by the common name (unless someone wants to put in extra effort into having Universal Monsters and Universal Monsters (1931–1956) to cover only the classic period. But that seems unlikely as of now.) ★Trekker (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No strong feelings either way. I know this has changed from my last time. Perhaps somewhere in the article it could be split up with an active period and the aftermath as some sort of consolidation or maybe as Universal Monsters in popular culture. It's sort of already organized that way with when the films were in production and the more mass market (the toys, the home video, the various knick-knacks), etc. Otherwise, I don't think anyone would be confused by this name change. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe "Universal Classic Monsters" was chosen because of the wording used on the home video collections. In other areas however, and perhaps a more common name for the franchise of characters is indeed "Universal Monsters". I support this move.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe if the article is "Universal Monsters", and it covers the official movies (i.e.: ones released in the collections), as well as remakes/reboots (including the Dark Universe), and then the home video releases which have been branded several ways, in addition to other media (toys, attractions, the new themepark) -- this article might somehow be finally back in good standing. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can find sources that back these statements up, I have no objections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Branding and term

As I don't have access to the article, I think this might help address a few editors. I've come across an article by Kim Newman discussing the monsters which might help settle the branding things issue (sort of). I can cite it here as I think it helps bring a second view point on the branding of the monsters. Newman states

• "The Universal Monsters franchise kicked off in the 1930s with Bela Lugosi as Dracula, Boris Karloff as the Frankenstein Monster (and the Mummy) and Claude Rains as the Invisible Man." This doesn't really help settle a what is, or what isn't in the franchise discussion, but maybe assists with the branding of the term as in Newman's idea, the franchise starts in the 1930s when these films were made, over the other two sources who relate it closer to the branding of the home video line. I've added the source here if anyone would like to try and apply it.
• {{Cite AV media notes|last=Newman|first=Kim|authorlink=Kim Newman|title=Tremors|publisher=]||chapter=Good Vibrations|page=7|id=FCD2061/FCD2089|year=2020|type=booklet}}.

Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is almost exactly what many editors have been stating from the start. If you're encouraging the use of the reference in the article, it would only assist with constructive/supportive data for the page. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated, we required sources to find this. When asked before, no sources were provided, and that was my only argument against it per WP:OR and WP:RS. This isn't really a sky is blue statement or anything either, as if it was, it'd be easily citable, and we've discovered it was not.Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

...@Andrzejbanas: you make it very difficult to respond to which has been pointed out to you as WP:SEALIONING before. There was no dispute regarding the name of this article nor the reality that it is a franchise. Just your insistence that it wasn't one.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what response you want, it's up to you to try and apply the source with content within the article or discuss its use here. I don't think it over-rides anything in the article currently, but hey, we can at least discuss it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Moderation again/Branding and RM

Re: the RM and the branding sections...Speaking only as someone who is trying to help moderate discussion, and not as someone who has an opinion (which I absolutely do not): Andrzejbanas, you're asking for sources that call it "Universal Monsters". Are there sources (rather than titles of home video collections) that call the overall franchise "Universal Classic Monsters"? Valereee (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Start-Class fictional character articles
• WikiProject Fictional characters articles
• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Start-Class horror articles
• High-importance horror articles
• WikiProject Horror articles
• Start-Class media franchise articles
• Mid-importance media franchise articles
• WikiProject Media franchises articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Mid-importance American cinema articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Requested moves