Talk:Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Debris feild, earth, past, future, etc.[edit]

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)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wreck[edit]

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)[reply]

I've started now writing a proper article for this film. AJK 20:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Good work. Ilmari Karonen 22:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

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)[reply]

It's better now, thanks :) AJK 06:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why link to a pirate site[edit]

User:Horsten removed the following paragraph: "An unauthorized Russian DVD of the movie, dubbed in Russian and English, is being sold (link removed by AJK)." from the Reception section, with the change comment "why link to a pirate site". The reason I added that paragraph originally was that it is evidence of the popularity of the movie; and the link there was just a reference, a source citation.

Now, I'm not summarily going to revert Horsten's edit, but I would like to solicit comments: is the article better with or without that paragraph (or equivalent)?

AJK 10:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the official DVD is now available from the StarWreck site, I think having the link here might directly harm the producers' revenue, and when they are giving the movie away as a free download I think their license should be respected. Now I'm not saying there is anything illegal about having the link, but from a moral standpoint I think it's wrong. Wikipedia is based on the concept of free sharing, and uses the Creative Commons licenses just like Star Wreck. When people put in a lot of work and actually decide to share it with others under such a license, we should support that rather than undermine it.
To summarize I think it's ok to mention that the unauthorized DVD exists, but IMHO we shouldn't actually link to the site that sells it. The link doesn't really add anything.
TH 10:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also encourages citing one's sources :) But your point is valid. AJK 11:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You could cite it by linking to a site, if there is one, that reports the existance of the bootlegs. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned in the SW forums, though you'll also be able to find that link there. I'll let others to insert this, or not. AJK 03:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The end: Past or future?[edit]

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. <!-- NOTE: Yes, the future is no mistake. Info was mistaken. Notice the debris in orbit in the final scene. -->

...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 <!-- Yes, it is so! Don't change this! --> 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)[reply]

I did, the wording could be improved but at least it explains the situation. TH 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On popularity[edit]

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)[reply]

11000 years in the past[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

License type[edit]

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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)[reply]

Cochrane[edit]

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)[reply]

Translation[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Starwreck6 dvdcover.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Removed unfair comparison[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV broadcast question[edit]

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)[reply]

Potkustart[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wreck:_In_the_Pirkinning&oldid=1193707598"