Talk:Wizard People, Dear Reader/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible Vandalism

Wait, why does "bedtime suckers" (which describes the hospital wing) link to a page for Pierre Lewis. Was this a joke in the movie, or is this vandalism?

The Futurist Corporation (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair

To my knowledge, there is no use of the word "Sinclair" in the movie in reference to Neville. He is merely called "Upfish". Seems to be a false reference to me.

CrayZsaaron (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes on this page apparently happen with glacial speed. A trusty ctrl-f of the script reveals no occurrences of Sinclair, nor do I remember anything so much as a hint that this was the intention of his name. There are a few other dubious references in this article, but this irked me the most, so it's gone. Brash (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear ReaderS

Can someone (who knows Wikipedia better than I) change the title of the page and URL to "Wizard People, Dear Readers"? Brad Neely, on his own website (http://www.creasedcomics.com/wpdr.php) identifies it as such and I think we should as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.10.197 (talk • contribs)

I concur. This article should be moved. I'm surprised nobody noticed this before. This move seems completely reasonable and couldn't possibly be controversial, but I'll give it a day or two. If nobody pops in and says "wait a minute" I'm going to move it myself. There seems to be no reason not to. Also, for people's reference, see here for more on how to move pages. --Cheeser1 05:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. --Rebent 07:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize this request is almost a decade old, but I think it's still valid. Does someone (possibly Cheeser1 or Rebent) want to take point on changing the title/URL of the article? Thanks! 209.63.138.34 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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.

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)

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)

"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)

Canadian problems?

"The Canadian and PAL releases of the film, too, use alternate takes to refer to the titular stone as the Philosopher's Stone (its original name) rather than the Americanized "Sorcerer's Stone", and as such, the audio may get slightly out of sync as the film progresses on the Canadian and PAL DVDs."

Having done this with a Canadian copy of the film I noticed no de-synch. I think it this may be incorrect. It makes little sense that there'd be a separate Canadian\US release since DVD releases are normally released universally across North America, containing English French and Spanish audio\subtitles. Canada-separate DVD releases are very rare. The Canadian case itself is called different, calling itself "philosopher's", not "sorcerer's", but it was my understanding that the US versions of the film contained mention of the "philosopher's" stone despite the title of "sorcerer's" in the title, meaning there were not scenes added\changed. For now I'll fact tag the statement that the Canadian release is different from the US release. As for the PAL problems, these are mentioned in numerous places already, no need for redundancies. --Thaddius 06:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the US film says sorcerer's stone, not philosopher's stone. However, I did try changing the speed on the audio to match the PAL version, and noticed that it did get out of sync because of the differences between philosopher's and sorcerer's. I don't know if the canadian one is different, but if it is, there will be sync problems. -Rebent 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian one is not PAL though (All of North America uses NTSC) so there shouldn't be much difference. Again, I've played it on the Canadian version with no de-synch. --Thaddius 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing found sourcing

For integrating into the article.

Major:

• Salon
• New York Times (non-free, but I'm sure I can find another copy somewhere, and we allow books as sources despite them being non-free)
• Austin Chronicle

Lesser:

• JoSTrans
• Arkansas Times

--Kizor 16:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• National Public Radio

One more for the list Hewinsj 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the creator of Wizard People apparently says it is Dear Readers, the more commonly used version is Dear Reader. "Wizard People, Dear Readers" -wikipedia retrieves ~800 hits while "Wizard People, Dear Reader" -wikipedia retrieves ~10,400 hits. Based on this, I've changed the article back to Dear Readers. Kingturtle (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wizard People, Dear Reader. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090821071957/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2004/06/07/movies/07POTT.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/movies/07POTT.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1