Talk:Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning

message: I assumed that the debris was that of the space station, seeing as "earth" resembled the planet in which the battles took place around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.27.143 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debris feild, earth, past, future, etc. 

message: I've replaced this article with a redirect to Star Wreck, since that's where all the information currently is.  If someone could contribute a non-stub article about this particular movie, that'd be great, but until then I feel a redirect is more appropriate. —Ilmari Karonen 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started now writing a proper article for this film. AJK 20:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Good work.  Ilmari Karonen 22:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to [[Star Wreck]] 

message: Although I agree that my original plot summary was fairly detailed and could use some trimming, I feel that the current plot "summary" errs on the other side, not even discussing the resolution of the plot and more having the feeling of a plot teaser than a plot summary.  How do others feel about this? AJK 05:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: From the current version, which I'm about to revert...
: being once again stranded on Earth, without a ship, during an ice age, far in the future. 
...to this:
: being once again stranded on Earth, without a ship, during an ice age, 11,000 years in the past.
...mostly because this is disproven on the forums *and* HTML comments shouldn't be used like this, otherwise people would add  everywhere. =) HTML comments shouldn't try to explain the article, just technical trivia for Wikipedians. It's inherently meta. If I see a HTML comment discussing plot details, it means the article isn't clear enough. So, let's discuss some facts:
I'm too lazy to check this, but I think the writer said in the forum that in fact, Info was correct and they did get in the past. Yet, the debris does mean they got in the future.
It's middle of the night, I think someone should come up with a better, contradiction-admitting neutral burp for the page. Please. I'm nodding off soon. --Wwwwolf 23:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, the wording could be improved but at least it explains the situation. TH 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end: Past or future? 

message: It should be noted that the figure of 2.8 million for The Unknown Soldier (1955) is theatrical attendance only – and that Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning hasn't had a theatrical release. So if the popularity of the two is to be compared, video sales and rentals, as well as TV ratings should be included for the first for the past 50 years – I seriously doubt that SW:ItP has it beat quite yet. This should also be noted on the main Star Wreck article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.220.31 (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On popularity 

message: :There is some controversy over whether they are, as Info suggests, stranded 11,000 years in the past, or if they are actually far in the future without hope (as suggested by the appearance of space debris when the camera zooms out from Earth just before the credits).
Uhm, who suggested the "in the future" story ? The debris can as well be their ship, which had just fell apart. Taw 17:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debris bears a striking resemblance to the space station that was shown in Earth orbit in an earlier scene.  Besides, their ship burned up it the atmosphere and finally crashed on the surface; it's hard to see how any debris from that could've ended up back in space.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  11000 years in the past 

message: I tried putting the exact type of Creative Commons license used on the article, but another editor removed it, with reason "specific type of license is explained in the link provided - extra text not necessary for article".
I think it's necessary to put the exact license on the article:
# Forgive me if I sound too much like a Stallman parrot, but saying a project is under a "Creative Commons license" is too vague. It could mean almost anything since there's differences between the various CC licenses. When discussing CC-licensed work, it's often necessary to say which specific CC license is used.
# Removing the detailed information just because the license is explained in the provided external link is not very practical. Wikipedia is not a link farm, but it utilizes external information. What would, say, Microsoft article look if we removed everything and just pointed to Microsoft's web page, after all, we can claim "it's all explained there"?
I hope this is a good enough reason to retain the information? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  License type 

message: Should Jeff Cockbrain (or whatever his name was), the hedonistic rockstar who corrupted the Vulgars, be mentioned in the character listing? JIP | Talk 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochrane 

message: The translation section has the "original research or unverified claims" warning. However, when I readed it I was unable to see any original research or unverified claims in it. :) I am a Finn though, so I am able to see that all of those points were true.
How thing like this should be verified for English language Wikipedia? I mean, do you really expect that someone have written something official about the college level (or lower!) humour of Star Wreck? The fact is that most of the jokes are lost in translation. Literally.
(There is already a link to the translation files on the article.)
-- Talamus 08:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: :Image:Starwreck6 dvdcover.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 this Wikipedia article 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 Wikipedia: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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Starwreck6 dvdcover.jpg

message: I've removed the text "In comparison, the most popular Finnish movie, Edvin Laine's The Unknown Soldier (1955) has a Finnish theatre attendance figure of 2.8 million (which, of course, doesn't include screenings outside Finland, TV screenings, video sales and rentals from the past 50 years)." It is misleading to compare the number of internet downloads with another film's number of theatre attendances. --Stfg (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unfair comparison 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060206162602/http://www.magentasites.com:80/public/index.php?page=10001/10207 to http://www.magentasites.com/public/index.php?page=10001/10207
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060206162637/http://www.magentasites.com:80/public/index.php?page=10001/10210 to http://www.magentasites.com/public/index.php?page=10001/10210
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article mentions that the film eventually received TV broadcast. Would it be accurate to call it the first Star Trek parody film to be televised? Most Trek parodies and fan films are web-only (and the new rules on Trek fan films issued by Paramount recently probably make such a thing unlikely to ever happen again). 68.146.233.86 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: TV broadcast question

message: The name of the ship, as written on it! is CPP Potkustart. Potkustartti is a conjugated form 73.223.250.219 (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potkustart