Jump to content

Talk:Europa: The Last Battle

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

746 minutes?

[edit]

Is the stated length really correct? If so that would make this film over 12 hours in length, surpassing even Paint Drying (which, no doubt, has far more artistic value than this film).

I get that a lot of far-rightists are NEET-types who have _way_ too much free time on their hands (and thus would be more willing to make, and/or watch, overly-long propaganda pieces). But even so, 746 minutes seems awfully excessive. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:CEB1 (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb says 12 hours, 26 minutes. A few other non-RSs mention that it's "12 hours" and a "ten-part web series", so as dubious as it sounds, the length appears to be accurate. Schazjmd (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


No Neutral

[edit]

This article should be marked as no neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.142.196 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a thing. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 23:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Noticerwhonotices (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral point of view" is. "No neutral" isn't. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 22:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticerwhonotices has been blocked per WP:NONAZIS. Isi96 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article only quotes Biased Sources

[edit]

The article relies on quotes from Biased sources to "Prove" its point. 222.108.156.194 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is biased against bullshit conspiracy theories and fraudulent pseudohistory. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🫵😭 148.69.23.76 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, yup. That's how English Wikipedia work. RamanaEmiliz (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of the source out of order

[edit]

Hi!

i'm fairly new on this so it may be nothing, but the sources appear to me as out of order, for example at the beginning going from 2 to 3 to 11. It seems to be the result of previous editing and sentence deletion, but it could be fixed and the article would look nicer. ZenZeppelin (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZenZeppelin That's because there's a bundled citation in the lead. Isi96 (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]