Author Topic: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page  (Read 150 times)

YoungestMonsterKid

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 947
"Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« on: September 15, 2020, 09:47:33 PM »
I feel like I'm probably getting too worked up about something that doesn't matter but.... what the hell happened to the Wikipedia page for "Universal Classic Monsters"? It used to basically be a well made list of every horror film made by Universal during the 20's through 50's. It was a real nice, comprehensive list of films (many I'd yet to even see). Now someone changed it to be the bare minimum. It basically just lists the 30 films that they put in the DVD set (plus the Lon Chaney Phantom). (Apparently This Island Earth doesn't even make the cut, anymore.) It's just really annoying. They cut out a lot of the history of the films being made to, I think. It's basically just "these movies were made and exist".
Just wondering if anyone can clue me in as to what happened. I assume it's some lame excuse like "it's too long". Would be great if someone made it a more useful list again.

Sir Masksalot

  • Corporal
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
Re: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2020, 10:07:38 PM »
I never saw this page but I love lists (I own all three volumes of The People's Almanac Book of Lists). I find these omissions as
annoying as you do, YMK. Fortunately there are lots of fine books chronicling the history of Universal horror, against which not even
Wikipedia can compete.

Mike Scott

  • Army General
  • *****
  • Posts: 24219
  • So terrifying only screams can describe it!
    • Monster Magazines
Re: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2020, 10:38:42 PM »
CREATURE FAN

Visit My Monster Magazines Website

LaettnersLegacy

  • Corporal
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
Re: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2020, 06:46:09 PM »
I noticed it changed. And it seems that the early 20ís films were cut last I looked. I think it was just edited by someone who prefers newer movies
"This is my left foot. This is my right foot. These are both my feet"

YoungestMonsterKid

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 947
Re: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2020, 11:00:19 PM »
I noticed it changed. And it seems that the early 20ís films were cut last I looked. I think it was just edited by someone who prefers newer movies
So they think their preference is all there is?

aura of foreboding

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 4332
Re: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2020, 01:28:36 AM »
So they think their preference is all there is?

Wikipedia is a struggle.  I fought over the vampire page when it first started.  Got tired of fighting and let the other person win out.  It's literally a small group of obsessive people who constantly change things to their perspective.  Ultimately, they get mowed down by even stronger personalities. 

BigShadow

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
Re: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2020, 02:18:31 PM »
Best thing is to not use Wikipedia at all.  It's very unreliable and often biased toward the person editing it. 
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/767593183431720/?epa=SEARCH_BOX

YoungestMonsterKid

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 947
Re: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2020, 02:51:25 PM »
Best thing is to not use Wikipedia at all.  It's very unreliable and often biased toward the person editing it.
Maybe 15 years ago. But the fact that so many people can edit it actually managed to make it more reliable over time. Pretty much everything on it now has multiple sources for information and opinions are regulated pretty well.

Monsters For Sale

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 9912
  • Aged 10 - 1957
Re: "Universal Classic Monsters" Wikipedia Page
« Reply #8 on: Today at 02:37:07 PM »
Maybe 15 years ago. But the fact that so many people can edit it actually managed to make it more reliable over time. Pretty much everything on it now has multiple sources for information and opinions are regulated pretty well.

I find that to be generally true.  It is at least a good starting place for research and often points the way to many other sources with more detailed information.
ADAM