Talk:Wizard People, Dear Reader
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
|
|||||||
Contents |
[edit] DVD With Audio
Does anyone know where to find the DVD file created by the Denton resident?
- BitTorrent websites. --Thaddius 13:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Verifiability and method of distribution
Should we add that this DVD is distributed via BitTorrent and private copying? Another edit has removed this stating "I see no particular evidence of this, nor a reason for such a statment to be tacked on there." I don't think that mentioning distribution is a "tacked on" statement - without distribution the DVD would not be notable, since it would only exist in one house in Texas. If it is distributed in another form, this should certainly be mentioned too.
I have been unable to find sources beyond blogs, forums, BitTorrent sites and the like which confirm my claim. However, these are also the only sources for the existence of the DVD in the first place. If there is no verifiable evidence that it exists on BitTorrent or is privately copied, I doubt there is any verifiable evidence that it exsits at all, in which case we shouldn't mention it at all, if we're being sticklers for the rules. -84.69.45.120 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It exists or it doesn't, the verifiablity (and neutrality) of this seems less troublesome. Saying that it was distributed in a certain fashion is a much harder statement to support without citations, evidence, or something. I'm happy with "such a thing exists" but not so much when we continue and imply things like that people are doing illegal things and that actions have occurred and are occurring. "Something existing" isn't as worrisome to me, and I'm not saying no such distribution exists, but you know, I'm worried about assuming how it's distributed. Cheeser1 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "New Art Form?"
I see no reason to call a work "hailed as a new art form" without any substantiation. Someone who knows more about this needs to make this NPOV.
I know a ton about this, and various news and media sources have described it as "something of a new art form" including the New York Times. I will edit the page to fit with your nitpicking.
[edit] Synchronisation
I tried this and it wasn't synchronised. I suspect this is because of timing differences between PAL and NTSC. Should we include this in the article? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that (at least for the US release) a number of scenes were reshot with the actors saying "Sorcerer's Stone" as opposed to "Philosopher's Stone," I'm sure there's a number of timing mismatches. To that extent, we should probably mention that WPDR was written/recorded against Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - not Philosopher's Stone. However, re-timing WPDR to match Philosopher's Stone would be an interesting project though! --Dr. Fuzz 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Short top?
Someone changed the chart with the list of names to say that Neville's character was called 'Short top' in the film. I'm just wondering where it was that this came from cause I only remember him being called 'Upfish', which you removed to put in 'Short Top'. --Thaddius 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Hoary"
Does anyone else think that his repeated use of "hoary" as an adjective is a reference to Dr. Strange? Vignettelante 10:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- could easily be a reference to many other things e.g. H.P. Lovecraft with his always-hoary Nodens.
- Fieryjack2000 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
