Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please do.  (I can give you a hand with that.)--P-Chan 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Awesome.  I think we're getting there.  --P-Chan 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Plot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   *_*  

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Publicity Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Disregard my last comment.  The overall world totals of $45 million are probably correct.--P-Chan 23:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Sounds good to me.--P-Chan 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More accurate Box office numbers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Phantom of the Opera & Count of Monte Cristo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New section under themes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: For example: Halloween (film), look at its images. Recently a successful FAC. Cvene64 10:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review and Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1812 Overture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Natalie Portman 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah I wanted to get rid of it. If its cool with you we should remove it. Cvene64 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yeah sure, I'm not dead against the screenplay, its fine. But yeah, remove the other! :) Cvene64 05:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the template in question has been orphaned and deleted as blatant spam.--Sean Black (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Movie Spoiler 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Norsefire paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot details 

message: Released on August 1 apparently, at least, region 1. . Nice cover. Cvene64 03:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that definitely definitely is a nice cover!--P-Chan 03:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: DVD

message: 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)
replies: text: Attack of the Clones is very much acceptable. Cvene64 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Wars

message: Someone changed a number of the references and now the date formats are inconsistant in the references section. They should all be standard, as the others. Cvene64 10:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I've done some cleaning up of the article including the refs , so it's probably me.  Could you show me where I've gone wrong, so I can fix it?  Thanks, --Oscarthecat 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, its just that some are in a different date format (date accessed on...2006-04-23..date accessed on..8 April 2006). I think its just the news entrys that use the numbered sets, is there anyway to change them to the other format?Cvene64 23:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh, ok.  The "URL accessed" has to be in ccyy-mm-dd format in the article, see Template_talk:Cite_news, but as it's presented as a wikified date when viewed, it gets transformed into the user's local preference for date.  I think this is the preferred format, so that users see the date in their own country's format, eg gets converted to ccyy-mm-dd to whatever their preference is. --Oscarthecat 09:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not.  All around, those were good logical answers. --P-Chan 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilinks

message: 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)
replies: text: Ah hah.  I found it!      --P-Chan 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question: Copyeditors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trial by fire

message: V for Vendetta is an "action thriller".  Is this the general concensus? --P-Chan 03:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 05:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  V for Vendetta 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The V logo 

message: yay! Congrats everyone! Cvene64 01:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks dude.  Much appreciated.  :) --P-Chan 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured!

message: 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?
# Voilà! In 
# view, a humble 
# vaudevillian 
# veteran, cast 
# vicariously as both 
# victim and 
# villain by the 
# vicissitudes of fate. This 
# visage, no mere 
# veneer of 
# vanity, is a 
# vestige of the 
# vox populi, now 
# vacant, 
# vanished. However, this 
# valorous 
# visitation of a bygone 
# vexation stands 
# vivified, and has 
# vowed to 
# vanquish these 
# venal and 
# virulent 
# vermin 
# vanguarding 
# vice and 
# vouchsafing the 
# violently 
# vicious and 
# voracious 
# violation of 
# volition. The only 
# verdict is 
# vengeance; a 
# vendetta held as a 
# votive, not in 
# vain, for the 
# value and 
# veracity of such shall one day 
# vindicate the 
# vigilant and the 
# virtuous. 
# Verily, this 
# vichyssoise of 
# verbiage 
# veers most 
# verbose, so let me simply add that it's my 
# very good honor to meet you and you may call me 
# V
-- UKPhoenix79 10:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did an independent count and got 49 as well. EVula 14:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.--P-Chan 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: LOL.  Sounds good.--P-Chan 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok in the archive 4 now! -- UKPhoenix79 23:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of V's in The V Monologue