Talk:Subspecies (film series)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodstone.jpg
Image:Bloodstone.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodlust.jpg
Image:Bloodlust.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews
Random reviews I found for these films. No idea if they're reliable sources and can be used in the article, but hey...  Paul    730  20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/s/subspecies.html
 * http://www.dvdschlock.com/2007/08/review-subspecies-epic-collection.html
 * http://www.moria.co.nz/horror/subspecies2.htm
 * http://www.horrorwatch.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=715
 * http://dvdlaser.com/search/qsearch.cfm
 * http://www.moria.co.nz/horror/subspecies.htm


 * Sweet.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote from the Moria review says "Another criticism from Scheib was with the replacement of Melanie Shatner with Denice Duff, who Scheib characterizes as "internalized and afraid", as opposed to Shatner being "alert and intelligent"." This is incorrect; the review plainly states that Duff & Shatner play different characters in the same movie. So I'm removing this bit. Pearce.duncan (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you read it then you would have noticed that it quote isn't wrong in what is being said, it's just the wrong name being associated. It was supposed to be Laura Tate, not Melanie Shatner. Laura Tate portrayed Michele in the original movie. I have undone your removal, and replaced Melanie with Laura.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also reworded it to be more clear; it was poorly written originally and it wasn't clear exactly what was being said.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actor Anders Hove
This person can't possibly be the same as the politician in the linked article Anders Hove, as he is said to have died 1978. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.68.9.9 (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He wasn't. Good catch.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloodstorm = Awakening?
I've seen Subspecies: Awakening available in various places. This seems to be an alternate title for Bloodstorm. If this is so, could some knowledgable person add this information to the entry? Thanks. - 152.76.1.244 (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please add new discussions to the bottom of the page, thanks. As for the title, if a reliable source (not IMDb or some fansite) can verify that that was an alternate title then it could be placed in the article. Otherwise, without a reliable source it cannot be. From a quick look at vending websites (where you would buy the DVD) it appears that "The Awakening" might have been a new title used years later, in 2002, to sell DVDs.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Anders Hove
The article for him is either deleted or not easy to find. "His" page redirects to someone who died in the 1970s. Very odd.


 * Didn't realize the name was that popular. Should be delinked till it can be determined (probably by someone more qualified) if he is even notable per the WP:BLP.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information
This article is incomplete and is missing important information on the releases of each individual films in the series. The reception section in the article is incomplete, the first film's Rotten Tomatoes score is not present in the article which needs to be added to the article. This section should also be split into subsections regarding the reception on each film in the series. It is very surprising that this article is classified as a Good Article since it's incomplete.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is literally just about everything that is available on these films. Good Article means that it is broad in it's coverage, not complete. The reason that Rotten Tomatoes isn't here is because there are only 5 reviews. That is statistically insignificant to put in the article. There is no "reception of each film" or "production of each film". There is literally what you see on this page. If there was more than that, they would all have their own articles. This page represents probably 95% of all the information available on these films.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)