Talk:Dan Wells (author)

2013 comment
I don't know how to fix the issue but I believe the "Ruins" hyperlink under the Partials Series section needs to be fixed or removed as it is currently linking to an Orson Scott Card book by the same title.98.211.47.194 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dan Wells (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100605190333/http://hortorian.com:80/2010/06/questions-and-answers-session-with-dan-wells/ to http://hortorian.com/2010/06/questions-and-answers-session-with-dan-wells/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

bibliography section
I propose culling the section down to those that have an article, then items can be added back in if they actually have sources that do more than proof the work exists. Not everything he ever wrote needs to be included. —valereee (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi —valereee, I've seen and worked on various works lists that didn't have a citation for each work. When is an in-line citation required for a work in a works list? MOS:LISTSOFWORKS states that an appropriately-sourced "complete list[] of works" is "encouraged", but doesn't discuss what a RS is or if it's required for each work. Is a Worldcat link good enough? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

cns and bsns
@Nihonjoe, this article has been edited by multiple COI editors. I don't think we should be including information about works simply because the publisher mentions it. If it's not mentioned in reliable sources, it may not be worth including. Ditto all the crowdsourced stuff. Those sources are almost all pink on Headbomb's. —valereee (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What is "Headbomb's"? Also, all the works are sourced with ISFDB now, and it's considered a reliable source. The Science Fiction Encyclopedia considers it reliable. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nihonjoe, sorry, missed seeing this. Headbomb's is a source checker at User:Headbomb/unreliable. ISFDB is marked as unreliable, probably because it's crowdsourced. valereee (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that assessment. Every single change to an entry is reviewed by a moderator and only approved it's valid. That "unreliable" alleged status is from a discussion where someone mentioned that ISFDB has a disclaimer stating that they can't guarantee everything on the site is accurate. That's simply a common legal disclaimer. You'll find it on all reliable news sites, on sites like Encyclopedia Britannica, and so on. It's there so someone can't sue them if something turns out to be incorrect. It's certainly not a valid reason to claim they are unreliable. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "reviewed by a moderator" means "reviewed by random amateurs trusted by the site's userbase". It's a web 2.0 source, which is as reliable as any other web 2.0 sources. ISFDB is a wonderful site, but it fails our sourcing criterias. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nihonjoe, I have to agree with Headbomb. ISFDB is no different from IMDb or other crowdsourced websites. We shouldn't be citing to them. valereee (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. All of their database content is vetted before being made public. While anyone can edit, not all edits make it through as they all have to be validated first. It doesn't fail our sourcing criteria. As it states in the the article, Cory Doctorow considers it to be authoritative, and he's considered authoritative of things speculative fiction. Tor.com also wrote an article calling it "the single best [science fiction and fantasy] bibliographical resource there is". It's cited in a large number (hundreds) of books and scholarly articles. Any claims that it's not considered authoritative (or in other words, reliable) in the speculative fiction community are blatantly false. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)