Our Wikipedia Page - Universal Monsters Podcast #5

Jake's book THE DEVIL'S LEAGUE is available now: tinyurl.com/tdljc
TIMESTAMPS:
0:56 Mattel's Monster High Film in the Works at Universal
3:26 Javier Bardem Wants to Play Frankenstein & His Monster
5:05 Universal's Dark Universe Reveals Concept Art & Merchandise
11:25 Our Wikipedia Page
New videos every Saturday!
Twitter: @CakeJamara
Instagram: @CakeJamara
/ hotqualitycontent​
Facebook.com/CakeJamara
Letterboxd.com/CakeJamara
Chess.com: CakeJamara

[@Val-b9o]

You don't have to use Wayback with Wikipedia. Every version of the article is in the article history, which you can get to from the 'View history' tab at the top of the page.

[@Val-b9o]

A is not an administrator.

[@Val-b9o]

Yes, there's a better source about House of Frankenstein than the movie itself. House of Frankenstein, the movie, can be used to detail the plot. It can't be used for discussions of theme, influence, whether it belongs in the article, etc. Someone else has to be saying those things.

[@HotQualityContent]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'd like to offer you the same respect. The "Disney Princesses" line didn't exist until the early 2000s, yet the majority of their films came out before the line ever existed. The creators of the article recognize everything from 1937's Snow White to 1998's Mulan as not just significant aspects of the article, but essential to the article even existing in the first place. Do you really believe that third-party sources are better at establishing whether a Disney-endorsed lineup of its own characters ought to include the films that franchise is about? Are Disney themselves not a strong enough source on what belongs in their own franchise? The Universal Monsters are in an identical place. The difference there is that nobody like "A" has gatekept and sealioned the Disney Princess page into oblivion.

[@Val-b9o]

Wikipedia editors are not all guys/he/"gentlemen". Seriously.