Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 4

The Plot
Most users are at a consensus that the plot should not be a blow-by blow summary of the movie. In it's current form, it is more than double the size of the plots in the various feature articles and is thus unacceptable. I will revive one of the old plots and reinsert it. I think it is better to have something within policy and try to expand on it, rather than have something way out of policy and try to fit it into policy. As well, the way the giant plot was set-up was through a very piece-meal, incremental process. Whenever that happens, people start focusing on the tiny details at the expense of the big picture. This is not a fan site, and thus the plot should be seen from an encyclopedic angle. The big picture, theme and substance... we should be aiming for this.--P-Chan 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats cool. But I will change the images back if thats alright. I believe the other one were more relevent - and they all had there fair-use sorted out. Cvene64 05:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do. (I can give you a hand with that.)--P-Chan 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Oops.  Nevermind.--P-Chan 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Looks great. By the way, the only remaining fair-use description to be done is the comic cover. Will be done soon. Cvene64 05:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I think we're getting there.  --P-Chan 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nom.
Thanks for the message. I say go for it. The article looks great, you have done a fantastic job.

-->A few minor issues that could be done
 * Add Fair-use rationale to cover
 * Possibly write something about the Fawkes actor
 * These things wont actually matter with a GA nom. though

So go for it! ;) Cvene64 07:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks dude. You did a lot of cool stuff to the article too.  Let's get ready to roll! --P-Chan 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing before we start... what do you think about the Norsefire flag that just appeared a few hours ago on the article? I think it looks pretty cool, but there seems to be a lot of overlap with the picture just below it.  --P-Chan 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can somebody get a better quality image of Evey having her head shaved? I think the article is great but that image kinda spoils it for me. -Phorque 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good we'll get a higher resolution image up.--P-Chan 05:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I actually changed it to low-resolution. The other one was a violation of fair-use. I think its fine. But feel free to paste some links or anything up, so we can have a look. Cvene64 11:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of really great improvements since I first saw this page. I would definatly vote for this if I could... How will it be decided? By this talk page or by a selected group/person? -- UKPhoenix79 12:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone will eventually (few days to a week) decide if it meets the GA criteria. Anyone can do it, so long as they have not contributed a lot to the article. It should be cool. Cvene64 12:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is a Very good one and now it has its well deserved recognition! Congratulations! -- UKPhoenix79 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

*_*
Oh Man.... Phoenix, I'm suprised you made the call. You sure you went through all the steps in making an unbiased GA evaluation for this article? The only reason, I'm asking is that you're pretty close to this project man! (I was actually hoping for a cold-reader to make the end judgement.)

But in any case it should be ok... (as the work processing the GA articles seems to be quite slow right now and thus you probably saved us some time). Besides, if anyone disagrees with the GA status, I'm sure we'd all be happy going through with the dispute resolution procedures.

Ultimately, I was hoping for some more feedback on the article from the GA procedure. (Which I think is just as important as the stamp of approval.) But it looks like we'll have to be a little more aggressive if we want that....

Sooooo.... I say we have an FA now and be done with it. What do you guys think? Cvene64? You ready? We might as well, while it's still fresh in our minds. I spoke with Savidan about this earlier and he said that there was no penalty for multiple tries other than having to correct the mistaks (which is really not a penalty). If we can't get it now, we'll get it in November. Besides, the quality of the comments that we'll be getting back will be top notch. Cheers. --P-Chan 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to hold off on the FA for the next little while (because there are a few more things that have to be changed), but keep the comments coming still... Cheers.--P-Chan 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for Successful GA
Well this page deserves it and I have done very little editing on this article, possibly 7-10 edits total, to it so I knew that I would qualify. I guess you could call me the fly on the wall since I have just been watching it grow and form into a very well developed article, thanks mainly to you and Cvene64. The article completes all requirements to be considered a good article. I could only find a few minor improvements needed, with the addition of more images being the only hinder to this becomming a Featured Article. But I have found nothing that would limit it from becoming a Good Article if not a Great Article. Everyone should be proud of their accomplishments here, you did a great Job! -- UKPhoenix79 04:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is "well written" easily understood by people not familiar with the topic. And for those terms that are not in simple English there are appropriate links to explain their meaning (ie dystopian) and correct links to other pages such that Parliament links to Palace of Westminster
 * The topics are properly organized into understandable locations. But I would think that resurrecting and linking to the old expanded plot article would be a good idea.
 * It is very well referenced to all possible source materials having a whopping 38 reference links at my last count.
 * It is broad in its coverage talking about the movie plot, development, production & cast, the differences between the movie & novel, themes carried throughout the movie, to both critical and political reviews... and even more. This article covers all its bases.
 * It is NPOV allowing the reader to make their own opinion. Both positive and negative reviews are listed with the same credibility. But it is missing a notable negative quote:
 * One of the most negative reviews came from Michael Medved of conservative radio, who called the film "V for vile, vicious, vacuous, venal, verminous and vomitaceous." Medved also said that the audience will lose interest about halfway through the film and that it has a confusing ending.
 * Here is its Ref
 * To avoid spoiling the movie, it might be a good idea to remove references to the successful explosion of parliament in non spoiler warning areas (ie Publicity and release)
 * It is stable without any edit wars that I’m aware of.
 * I do think that this article does need more images especially in the cast section. It would be better to have promo shots of the cast in costume next to their name and description look at Star Trek: Deep Space Nine


 * Well, that's good enough for me UKphoenix. The detailed comments you made are great!  :)  --P-Chan 00:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad that you liked them, I thought that the comments were kind of brief but hopefully they will be of some use. I am currently trying to scour the net for promotional head shots of the cast in character. But I am having very little success in this endeavor. It looks like I may have to use individual close ups (screen shots) of the cast to create something similar to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It looks like I may do some real editing to this article. -- UKPhoenix79 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That might be something that is better for the minor characters page. As it may be a little excessive on this one, due to the the level of depth that is expected in FA articles.  If you notice with Casablanca and Blade Runner, the character depth is minor.   I fear that if there is a matrix with headshot pictures of each of the characters, it would lead to a lot of clutter.  Another option is to use a picture like this, while not a film picture, it could be just as useful.  What is your opinion on it?--P-Chan 07:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am having problems seeing the image are you having similar problems? If not can you find it on another website? -- UKPhoenix79 07:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah its all good. As far as I know, articles rarely get feedback from a GA status. Even when rejected, a user will only leave a few words at the top of the page. So its all good. As for FA, we mut go through a peer review before we go FAC. The PR will be swift, if anything, just an act that will help us clean up. Then we should go FAC.


 * I'm 99% sure you can request when you want it to appear on the front-page, so in terms of relevence, it would be cool to tie it in with the DVD release (North America I guess). But it would also be very cool to have it featured on Nov. 5...if we want to wait that long though. Depends how well the FAC goes I guess. But peer review first, even though we have done it before, you can do it all multiple times. Cvene64 05:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think we're almost there. Even though it would be cool to do the Gunpower Plot, November 5th feels way too far away.  :)  The DVD release?  I have a feeling that the earliest for that would be August or september, maybe they'll do a November 5th thing, who knows.  But regardless, we're talking about months here.  I think an FAC soon (while it's still fresh in our heads) would be great.  It make look like one can just sitdown and start editing, but in reality this stuff has to stay fresh in your mind.--P-Chan 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think that having at either one of those dates would be great... But I would imagine that it would be more appropriate to be featured at the same time as the DVD release! -- UKPhoenix79 07:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Medved Review
I returned the Michael Medved review to the article.

P-Chan deleted it saying, "(?Critical - (Replaced review with a more seasoned reviewer).)"

Given the fact that Medved has been professionally reviewing movies for more than a quarter of a century, starting at CNN in 1980, and co-hosted the PBS movie review show Sneak Previews for a dozen years, I concluded that P-Chan's knowledge of movie reviewers - needs more seasoning.

69.39.172.84 13:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been removed. Wait for P-Chan to respond to your comments here before putting in back in. Cvene64 13:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks 69.39.172 for coming to the talk and being patient.
 * Yes, I agree with you when you say that Michael has a lot of years on him, and in that regard would be more seasoned than Jonathan Ross. However, Michael Medved can be clasified as both film critic as well as a right wing pundit, and thus have baggage that the other film reviewers don't have. The other critics listed are not known for their politics, but rather for their movie reviews.  So in retrospect, "seasoned reviwer" was probably not the right choice of words... perhaps I should have said "100% film reviewer" or something like that.  Bad wording on my part.  Did that answer your question? --P-Chan 18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Publicity Section
I think this is now the weakest point of the article. There seems to be a lot of trivia here, and it includes very little about what was said at the various press conferences and how the makers of the film positioned their product. --P-Chan 21:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More accurate Box office numbers
Good thing that guy posted that different set of box office numbers today... otherwise it wouldn't have made me question the ones we have, which are actually incomplete and underestimate the true value.



The ones at Boxofficemojo don't include numbers for either Australia or Japan. I would think that these two would add something to the totals. We should find these if we can.--P-Chan 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Disregard my last comment. The overall world totals of $45 million are probably correct.--P-Chan 23:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. They may not have them on the individual international numbers list, but I bet they are included in the 45.Cvene64 00:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.--P-Chan 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera & Count of Monte Cristo
The unknown user that wrote that thing about the Phantom of the Opera has a point. There is the whole element of the dramatic parallels to the FOTO and COMC stories that we haven't incorporated. We'll definetly try to incorporate those things in the future! (I'm writing this now, because we just deleted that person's post and he/she might wonder why). Also there is that whole thing with the parralels between Deitrich and V. I think there is a sentence about it somewhere, we may want to write more. (Hopefully we don't get bogged down). --P-Chan 01:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I only removed it because there were no references. If it is put it, it shouldnt be in dot points either.Cvene64 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here it is:There are noticable similarities between V for Vendetta and several movies, especially the 2004 film version of Phantom of the Opera. These include:

The relationship between V and Evey (paralelling the father figure/lover confusion between Christine and Erik (The Phantom) in Phantom of the opera) The "kidnapping" of Evey by V, (parallelling Eriks "seduction" of Christine into his lair) The obvious masked figure personas of V and Erik, both (partially) due to injury from earlier in life. The radicalism in both V and Erik (From V's bombings to Erik's setting of the Opera House on fire) Cvene64 02:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

New section under themes
Put in a new section right under themes, which should briefly mention the various thread themes throughout the film. This will be rather messy (for now), but I believe it's a must because the Gunpowder plot, POTO, COMC, V's identity, etc are not really spoken about in any great length in other parts of the article. There seems to be quite a few litlte odds and ends that are notable to at least be mentioned.--P-Chan 03:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The section definetly needs a lot of work. I think I might be writing about use-of-imagery rather than themes in that intro paragraph.  I might even change it back.  (I'll check out the FAs do this.)--P-Chan 04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review and Images
I think you're right about having another PR (maybe in a few days). This new one should be much more directed and address specific issues, since the article is in the mature phase. (I'll think of a list of quesitons). Similar to UKphoenix, I've been wondering about how nuts we can go with the images. Take a look at the Blade Runner article... (Don't the pictures there look nice and big?  And look at all the screenshots they use!)  We should find out how the FA articles push the envelope the way they do and follow that.--P-Chan 04:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No trust me, no more images at all! Blade Runner has been a Featured Article for ages now, but has yet to make it on the front page - I suspect it is because of a number of reasons - one of which would be the images. The fair-use states that there should only be one! We can get away with what we have - but not anymore. Cvene64 15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think our current policy is being overly conservative. We should be pushing the envelopes with the images and see what happens, I'm sure we can still do more to this article and stay within guidelines.  I've read a bit about this topic, but still think I should know more.  If you have any articles or policys that talk address what we're talking about right now, I encourage you to show post them here.--P-Chan 03:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a lot of exerience with the FAC, and trust me, if we add any more images it will just be a problem come FAC. Besides, we don't need anymore, it's not being conservative, just being realistic. Cvene64 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For example: Halloween (film), look at its images. Recently a successful FAC. Cvene64 10:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing some of the FA films again, including another new film: Tenebrae (film), I'm going to have to agree with you. Aside from Blade Runner, most films have less pictures than this article does right now (and Blade Runner is an old film).  So in preparation for an upcoming FA, we'll keep it nice and clean.--P-Chan 20:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Out of interest, what did you have in mind/what did you think could do with an image the most? Cvene64 09:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1812 Overture
At which part of the 1812 Overture does V destroy the Old Bailey? I'm sure it wasn't the notes at the end of the piece.- JustPhil 03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it was. It's at the climax... right after the part with the church bells.--P-Chan 20:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Natalie Portman
A nameless user wrote directly into the article the following question in regards to Ms Portman's nationality. "How can she be American? She is from Jerusalem.Natalie Portman"
 * Well my response to that is that I believe she was born in Israel, but she moved to America when she was very young. None of the other actors have American citizenship or anything close.  Does this answer your question?  (Thanks goes out to Luke C for redirecting the nameless user to the talk page).--P-Chan 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Movie Spoiler
Apparently there is a template for The Movie Spoiler. I think this is a bad idea to have a site like this as a standard External link. The site really goes nuts on the ads, plus the quality of the synopsis' aren't that great, as they aren't peer reviewed like they are here and some of them are full of spelling errors. I switched Movie spoiler link on this article with a printer friendly one... but even then I'm thinking that we should consider dumping or replacing it eventually. --P-Chan 04:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wanted to get rid of it. If its cool with you we should remove it. Cvene64 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I have any support here, but I would also like to see the IMSDB removed. Should we be linking to it? Whats the deal? Anyway I believe the only relevent links are
 * 1) The official site - obvious reasons
 * 2) IMDB - full cast/crew/release date etc etc
 * 3) RT - a large collection of reviews Cvene64 04:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dump the MSP? Sure. In regards to your second item, you mean with the with the old script? Hmm...  I would say that it would classified as something beyond the external links minimal requirements (like a major fansite, an analysis site, etc).  It seems to fit all of the critiera of a proper external link (in terms of it's quality, and relevence).  I would rather keep it for now.--P-Chan 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, I'm not dead against the screenplay, its fine. But yeah, remove the other! :) Cvene64 05:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the template in question has been orphaned and deleted as blatant spam.--Sean Black (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist theme
How is it that by exploring the actual story that the movie was made about, it is to use the movie for propaganda purposes? They made the movie about the story of an anarchist character. It's not like the movie "figths the power" in such an inspirational way that anarchists thought about connecting some dots, using this as a forum.

V for Vedentta is the story about an anarchist. Deal with it! And just because the movie censoured the original polt to some extend, doesn't mean that i have to do it or that it is not relevant to explore the actual origins of the story in question.

I'm sure that if this were about some other much less political controversial point, people would have left the links about exploring themes that are historically associeted with the object of the article, alone. The article itself says that the "graphic novel is generally darker, with a greater emphasis on anarchist themes", which means that the movie also, to some extend, has an emphasis on anarchist themes! Well, aforanarchy.com explores in an historical and objective way, those elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maziotis (talk • contribs)
 * The site fails WP:EL standards in my opinon. Statements such as "core message of Anarchy has been severely twisted in the film version" and "Hollywood's current filtering of V For Vendetta...", the introduction of the deleted scenes page (not even going to bother to read the rest)...the point is this (is it yours?) website is a bunch of opinions about anarachy and this and that. The current external links are strictly about the film (Official - obvious, IMDB - cast/crew/info, RT-for a large collection of reviews and the screenplay which is basically official material). The website may meet these suggested rules for exclusion -

->Furthermore, it doesnt really sit well with WP:EL. Its been removed countless times. Stop adding it. Cvene64 09:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view.
 * 2) Links that are added to promote a site

1.Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject OR it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view.

This site is, in fact, a "notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view."

About the second point, how can i add a site without promoting it? Or does that only applies to the case where the person wich adds the site is the owner himself, therefore raising some ethical questions? Well, I am not involved with this site in any way, if that is troubling you.


 * Hello, Maziotis. Where you the person who was adding the AforAnarchy link for the last few months?  If you were, then I applaud you for finally coming to talk and discussing your motivations.  It helps us understand what you’re trying to do and gives us a chance to explain our motivations as well. (However, I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding your first set of posts, so I encourage you to clarify your points.)


 * The major reason that we don’t promote the anarchist cause in this article is simply because it would make us look biased. Anarchists were only one out of many groups to comment on the film from a political angle.  We’ve tried very hard to give representation to every major point of view in the political commentary section.  (In fact, your website is already located there as a source along side many others).  Because of balance issues, we just can’t elaborate too much on one side.  As well, the Aforanarchy group is very small, and from what I’ve seen, most of their V for Vendetta rallies had less than 8 people in them.  It’s already over represented as it is.  Meanwhile, LewisRockwell, Michael Moore, LGBT groups and conservative groups like Frontpagemag, are much much larger and carry more weight in terms of their reach.  Did I address your concerns?  (Also please sign your posts).--P-Chan 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not the person who has been adding the link AforAnarchy for the last few months. I guess this movie has a big expression and there are a lot of anarchists out there who naturally see this as an opportunity to see their ideals and worries discussed in public. I think I put the link twice, but started debating after it was taken of. I understand the reasons you point out. Anyway, I believe that the anarchist theme should at least be discussed during the article, since it is obvious that it is a political movement, I guess the only one, which is associated with the history of "V for Vendetta".Maziotis 19:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I’m not even a big fan of AforAnarchy. If I were to make propaganda for anarchy I would rather put sites like greenanarchy.org or greenanarchist.org But AforAnarchy is the site that is relevant to this article, though. Maziotis 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you're saying. We actually do discuss a bit about Anarchy throughout the article, so it should be ok.  But if you really want to put an Anarchist touch into a V for Vendetta article... then I highly encourage you to visit and add to the graphic novel article.  In my opinion, that article needs some expansion when talking about its Anarchist themes and could really use some work in that area.  Hope that answers all your questions Maziotis.--P-Chan 03:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Norsefire paragraph
Don't feel comfortable leaving this paragraph sitting in the article in the state it's in right now... especially at this time. So I'm going to dump it here for now... but will put it back soon.--P-Chan 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Norsefire's method of establishing itself as the sole and controlling party is also changed. Where the graphic novel presented Norsefire as having taken control opportunistically when the populace was demanding some charge be taken, in the film Norsefire is shown as having engineered a viral disaster, presented it as an extranational biological attack, and then provided the sole cure for the virus thus released. In so doing the moral ambiguity of Norsefire is lessened, as the party achieved power though subterfuge and slaughter rather than though a normal election process. Moreover, rather than being potentially seen as holding order (albeit through totalitarian force) against an increasingly harsh world, Norsefire, in the movie, can be seen to be the perpetrators of the primary danger they represent themselves as holding off.


 * Actually, in retrospect, I don't think it is necessary to reintergrate this passage into the article. The point of Norsefire, being a necessary evil in the novel is already incorporated into a previous paragraph.  Plus, it should be noted that the film's Norsefire could be interpreted as a necessary evil as well... due to the problems with war and terrorism.--P-Chan 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is V a terrorist?
(For the user who removed the terrorist description from V, and left the comment: "Terrorism is incorrect: V does not inspire terror in the citizenry.")

Is V a terrorist? Here's the definition of terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Seems to fit. (Also.. I believe I recall the makers of the film actually calling V a terrorist themselves).--P-Chan 04:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a definition of "terrorism." There are several competing points of view on this subject.
 * Septegram 15:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * V doesn't really "target civilians" or have a "disregard for human life" though...interesting this has only been brought up now though...Cvene64 10:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this article did have a talk about this topic a long time ago. We used to have at one point V labelled as a terrorist... and that's it.  And yeah, the definitions that some people use for terrorism can be pretty loose.  Check it out:Definition of terrorism.   I'd be totally cool calling V a terrorist/freedomfighter, as a lot of the times it is a matter of perspective.  (To get people to talk about whether or not V is a terrorist, I think, was actually one of the intentions that the filmmakers had).--P-Chan 04:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, even in the movie, he most certainly does target civilians. He just limits himself to killing civilians who hurt him in the past. Dan

Plot details
I reverted some of Wyfling's changes to the plot because they changed two important points of the story.

1) "By forcing Evey to experience what he had gone through long ago, V hoped to forge an ally who understood both his ongoing grudge against his personal tormentors but also the greater "grudge" of the people against the tyrranical state that would oppress them. Evey leaves V, promising to return before November 5 of the following year."

What point this changes is hard for me to explain.. but there goes:

V hates the regime, but V is not a brute. He does not want instill blind rage and hate into Evey. Instead V is an idea. He wants to instill into Evey that there is something more than just your life, there is an idea. He goes through the whole process with Evey to make Evey into an idea like V. This is made very very clear in the graphic novel when Evey says that she felt like an angel when she knew she would die. She has been enlightened, and she no longer fears, because she is no longer just Evey, but rather an embodiement of an idea like V. (Evey's imprisonment and transformation are powerful moments in the film and graphic novel... very moving stuff.)

So it's just not a grudge! That would be too easy. --P-Chan 05:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2) Also, in regards to the Norsefire paragraph...

It is very important to note that the people of Norsefire were already in some form of power, before the virus, due to war and terrorism in London. (This is true in the film as Valerie and V were in the batch that were used to create the virus, and thus the plague happened after Valerie died.)  The war and terrorism bit is important because it shows that these guys had a purpose, they were the byproduct of people's fears and need for security. The people legitimately allowed these guys into power, because they were afraid of the war and terrorism around them. (It is also important because it is meant to be a parrellel our own world: the trade-off between security and freedom in the face of terror.)

I hope I explained all of that alright. If I didn't, just say so.--P-Chan 05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

DVD
Released on August 1 apparently, at least, region 1. . Nice cover. Cvene64 03:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that definitely definitely is a nice cover!--P-Chan 03:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, but it sorta spoils the ending. I wish they'd've used one of the movie posters instead. RobertM525 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars
Star Wars Episode II:Attack of the Clones is a huge title. Do people just call this Attack of the Clones or Star Wars:Episode II? I'm sure they don't say the whole thing. Cvene64, do you know which one is most acceptable? --P-Chan 03:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Attack of the Clones is very much acceptable. Cvene64 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Hey guys, there has been a lot of changes in the use of wikilinks recently, which raises a few questions...

A) Cvene64, I know that it is a bad idea to repeat wikilinks, and that 1 is usally enough in most cases. I noticed that you made some changes to the wikilinks, by duplicating a few... by not counting the ones already in the Lead Section.  Is there a policy somewhere stating that the wikilinks in the Lead Section will not be counted in terms of duplication?  (I'm looking for it myself).
 * I wikilinked the first use of each word in the main body of the article for convienience. Cvene64 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

B) Oscarthecat, I've noticed that you went back and added wikilinks to all the dates and years in the article. I think this clearly goes against Manual of Style (links), which says that dates add very little value.  I'm guessing there was a specific reason (that I'm not seeing) when you added the wikilinks, so if you could share it that would be cool. --P-Chan 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * P-Chan - where dates include the day, month and year, they should be wikilinked. This allows the dates to be viewed to the users' preferences (see My Preferences -> Date and time).  If you take a look at a decent featured article such as Blade Runner, you'll see that wherever the date has all these 3 components (day, month, year), it's been wikilinked (3 examples in the Production section of the article), in order to present them in the appropriate format for the user.   Hope this makes sense and I'm not rambling too much! --Oscarthecat[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. All around, those were good logical answers. --P-Chan 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: Copyeditors
A long time ago one of the old peer-reviewers volunteered to copyright this article once it was stable. I've contacted him a few times, but never got a response back. As well, passive requests in the to-do, asking for a detailed copy-edit, don't seem to be too effective. Thus, I'm wondering if there is some archaic wikipedia procedure to ask for a copy-editor.

If anyone knows of a someone who would have the skills and will to copyright the article, maybe you could introduce them to it. --P-Chan 17:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah hah. I found it!      --P-Chan 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Trial by fire
Wow, feels like we're getting hit extra hard on the FAC. (Or maybe it's always like this, I have no idea). :)

In any case, what options do you think we have Cvene64 on the pictures?--P-Chan 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, yeah, I thought this article would get a smoother ride through. Anyway, I have removed the cover - as it was the least credible to qualify under fair use. As for the rest, I think (if its cool) upload a new image of Evey, put that in the plot and remove the rest in that section. Then, upload a good image of V and put it in the number 5 section.

So then we would have:
 * Poster
 * Plot image
 * Norsefire rally
 * V

That will pass. Cvene64 04:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta
V for Vendetta is an "action thriller". Is this the general concensus? --P-Chan 03:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Its going off the IMDb classification which should be fine. Iam more worried about the LGBT-related film category. I really don't think it should be in there, its a bit misleading in my opinion. Cvene64 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, it's primarily an action thriller. It's also a LGBT film.  No reason why it can't be in both categories, just like American Beauty (1999 film) is a LGBT and a satirical film. --Oscarthecat[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 05:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The V logo
If you turn it upside down, it looks like the Anarchist logo. I can't see any mention of this in the article... is this just coincidence? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ta bu shi da yu. The info that you're looking for is mentioned briefly in the "The letter V and the #5" section.--P-Chan 08:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured!
yay! Congrats everyone! Cvene64 01:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Great stuff guys! We all just created one of the finest and most complete V for Vendetta resources on the net, an article that make FA only a few months after the movie opened.  (This may be a wiki-first).  None of us could have done this alone and that really really shows the power of collaboration and Wikipedia in general.  Those of you who contributed (whether you’re a technical expert, subject matter expert, peer reviewer, FA reviewer or just a user who fixed a typo) I just want to say that you did a fine job.  Cheers! --P-Chan 16:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats P-Chan & Cvene64 you two did a great job leading this page! I went away for a couple of weeks and I missed out on all the fun... Darn... Would have loved to be involved in the nomination. Oh well! Keep up the excellent work! -- UKPhoenix79 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks dude. Much appreciated.  :) --P-Chan 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of V's in The V Monologue
People seam to change the numbers of V's in this dialog from 48 to 50. If I'm correct there should only be 49 v's in this monologue. Am I missing any?


 * 1) Voilà! In
 * 2) view, a humble
 * 3) vaudevillian
 * 4) veteran, cast
 * 5) vicariously as both
 * 6) victim and
 * 7) villain by the
 * 8) vicissitudes of fate. This
 * 9) visage, no mere
 * 10) veneer of
 * 11) vanity, is a
 * 12) vestige of the
 * 13) vox populi, now
 * 14) vacant,
 * 15) vanished. However, this
 * 16) valorous
 * 17) visitation of a bygone
 * 18) vexation stands
 * 19) vivified, and has
 * 20) vowed to
 * 21) vanquish these
 * 22) venal and
 * 23) virulent
 * 24) vermin
 * 25) vanguarding
 * 26) vice and
 * 27) vouchsafing the
 * 28) violently
 * 29) vicious and
 * 30) voracious
 * 31) violation of
 * 32) volition. The only
 * 33) verdict is
 * 34) vengeance; a
 * 35) vendetta held as a
 * 36) votive, not in
 * 37) vain, for the
 * 38) value and
 * 39) veracity of such shall one day
 * 40) vindicate the
 * 41) vigilant and the
 * 42) virtuous.
 * 43) Verily, this
 * 44) vichyssoise of
 * 45) verbiage
 * 46) veers most
 * 47) verbose, so let me simply add that it's my
 * 48) very good honor to meet you and you may call me
 * V

-- UKPhoenix79 10:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did an independent count and got 49 as well. EVula 14:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto.--P-Chan 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well its nice to know that I wasn't blind and kept on missing one! I say that if we all agree on how many there are this convo should be put in the talk archive since it takes up so much room! -- UKPhoenix79 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. Sounds good.--P-Chan 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok in the archive 4 now! -- UKPhoenix79 23:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)