Talk:Blood Feast

Tube.
Generally, we should be crediting the authors of reviews. Its better than just saying the publication wrote it, as these articles have authors. We should credit them, especially if its just an opinion piece. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If its the correct name, sure. Variety is a mainstream paper of the 1960s, not a fanzine, and used real names not one-word pseudonyms, if that even is what it is. "Tube." is not a name. It may not even be what was listed in the actual paper. It sounds like a typo error. Can you please show me where it says "Tube."? Otherwise we have to assume your source is incorrect.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Greg Fasoline that it seems unlikely Variety would run a review, then or now, under such a byline. Mackensen (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll provide a picture of it at home. Its not just my source, as if you spot older review from other publications of this era, this is generally how Variety credited people. You can even see it here in other sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I went and looked at the microfilm image too. It appears though that all of the reviewer credits have a "." at the end, as punctuation, not as part of the name. Perhaps the reviewer's name was John Tube or something. I think you need to remove the period for now, until a first name comes to light.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I even tried to figure out the names on my own curiosity. Seems to be a bit lost to history, but I'm happy to remove the "." from Tube part. Honestly, its more frustrating that the book I got has no index page or even page numebrs. Just got flip through a 400 page book I guess. :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)