User talk:Funslinger

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Important!

This editor is no longer actively participating and is unlikely to respond to messages left here.

If this user is the sole verifier of a publication record, please:

  • post only notices on the user's talk page concerning the addition of images and notes
  • post inquiries regarding any other changes to the verified record at the Moderator noticeboard

Otherwise, please post notices and inquiries only on the talk pages of the other primary verifiers.

Welcome!

Hello, Funslinger, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --MartyD 11:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Win Some, Lose Some content

Hi, and welcome. I have your submission of content for Win Some, Lose Some on hold. For content entries, we use only each work's title. Parentheticals are only used in two cases: if included in the original title, or to disambiguate from another work of the same title. See Help:Screen:EditPub#Title_2 for details. What we would normally do about individual-work introductions in a collection or anthology is simply record in the notes that each has an introduction and not try to include the introductions as content entries. Here, where each is separately credited and to different well known SF authors, I could see a case for recording them as content (of type ESSAY). It looks like the introductions' titles are conveniently: Introduction to "xxx", which is clear and distinct.

Since the parenthetical information you included has the introductions' authors' names, if you want to make entries for the introductions, I will accept the submission and let you edit the titles (then you cut + paste the names; easier than re-typing). If you don't want to make entries for the introductions, I will accept the submission and fix the titles -- my doing it will save you an edit-and-approve cycle. Let me know which you prefer. You can reply here by editing this section. Indent your response by adding a colon (":") to the front of the text, and sign by using the signature button (2nd button from the right in the editor window) or adding four tildes ("~~~~"). Thanks. --MartyD 11:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, go ahead and edit the entries. Thanks, Funslinger 12:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't let all of that entry of the introduction authors go to waste, so I added the essays while I was fixing the titles. Because they were entered as a second batch, they all would have appeared at the bottom of the listing, so I added fake page numbers to get the display in the right order. If you have the book and could supply real page numbers, that would be great. Regardless, please review. Thanks for all of the work getting that entered. --MartyD 11:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If you do have the book, would you also double check the spelling of "Torgerson" on the introduction to "The Homecoming"? He spells his name "sen", not "son", but I see on Amazon's Look Inside that the ToC spells it "son". Unfortunately, the Look Inside does not let me see the credit on the introduction itself (which is what we would go by, not the ToC). Thanks. --MartyD 12:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks fine. I don't actually have the book yet so I can't help you there. Funslinger 04:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Notifications to PVs

Hello, I've just approved your change of title for this essay. Please note that, when submitting such changes, it's customary to inform the PVs (eventually according to their preferences as sometimes listed on their talk pages). Hauck 08:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. PV? Funslinger 08:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry also to use ISFDB jargon. PV = Primary Verifier, one or more contributors listed as "Primary" & "PrimaryN" (N=2 to 5) in the "Verification Staus" area of the publication, they are the persons that indicated having the book and thus easy access to it in case of ulterior verification. In this case, the PV are Alvonruff and myself. Hauck 08:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Magazine dating

It is the ISFDB standard to use the stated date of publication even if that date should be a month or so off based on the actual date of appearance. This is especially the case for magazines which often appear months before the stated date.

The standard is documented here. You have the option of providing the appearance date in the Note field. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that policy. However, the “stated” publication date isn't present in my July/August 2013 issue. The only thing that hints at a publication date was the Next Issue on Sale from the previous issue. In my mind, the “stated” publication date for the July/August issue is 7 May 2013. Funslinger 22:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The date field of a magazine's ISFDB record gives the issue date, which comes from either the front cover or table of contents page, usually both (this is what I meant by "stated".) Some may consider the on-sale date as the date of publication, but for ISFDB purposes, please use the issue date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Linking to image files on other servers

We can only link to files on other servers if we have explicit permission from the hosting server. The standard is documented here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Funslinger 22:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Asimov essay

If the essay appears as "The Biochemical Knife-Blade" on its title page (page 107 in this edition), you can remove the content from the record and add a new one. The reason why it's not editable is because it appears in another publication under the same name. Use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function (under the Editing Tools menu), and then do a second edit to add a new content record with the correct title. Then we can make this title into a variant of the original title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I added an entry with the updated title and deleted the incorrect title. Funslinger 02:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Fine. I've made the new title into a variant. Just to double-check: the essay's title is taken from its title page and not from the book's content page? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Correct. It's from the title page. Funslinger 06:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Making changes to verified publication records

Hi. Thank you for all of your recent contributions. One procedural policy item for you to be aware of: When you want to make a change that would affect a publication that has Primary verification(s), our policy is to notify the verifier(s) of the changes by leaving a message on the verifier's talk page or by following whatever directions that person may have posted at the top of the talk page. In general, you can submit additions in parallel with notifying the verifier that you have done so, but you should ask a verifier before altering any data that's already there. If you run into a situation where you're adding, but it looks like the verifier missed something that should have been seen, you might want to ask first.

So, for changes like those to titles of content appearing in the various verified issues of Analog, you would ask the primary verifier(s) first. Tpi is not very active, but Hauck is (he's a moderator, too).

I checked with Hauck and left a note for Tpi, so they're all set, and I have accepted the submissions. This is just something to keep in mind for the future. Thanks. --MartyD 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Posting messages on other editors' talk pages

You asked a question in your latest submission (which I had to reject because it changed a primary verified record) about how to contact other editors. In a publication record, you can click on the name of the editor(s) who verified the record. This leads to their User Page. On that page there is a tab at the top labeled "Discussion". Click on that tab which leads to their User Talk Page. On that page, there is a plus (+) tab. Click on that and a dialogue page opens. Enter a title for your post in the "Subject/Headline" box. In the larger box enter your message, and end with four tildes to sign and date it.

In the future, ask any questions on the ISFDB:Help desk page, not in the "Note to Moderator" field of a database submission.

I've left a message on the active user's talk page about the change you want to make in the record for the Analog, December 2008 issue. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ebook eds. of Analog

I saw you had questioned the verifier about the length-designation of a couple of stories in a 2012 issue of Analog. I was wondering, are you able to do word counts of stories in the ebook editions of the magazine? If so, the story length can be easily determined. Sometimes a magazine edition mistakenly designates a story with the wrong length. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Analog website listed the two stories as novelettes and they were labeled as novelettes in the ebook. Yes, I can do a word count of the stories. Funslinger 18:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
If the count is between 7501 and 17500, it qualifies as a novelette and you can update the title record. Add a note that the length is from an actual word count. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Short stories are under 7500 words, novellas are 17,500 to 39,999 words and novels are 40,000 or more words. Funslinger 18:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
What is the policy for defining a word? Typically, it is every 6 characters to include spaces. So, "I can not do it." would be 2 words + another word for the remaining 4 characters. Three words as opposed to five, the actually number of words. Counting actual words doesn't really give you a firm grasp on the length of a piece since word lengths can vary greatly. If a document is full of small words, it will have a large word count in relation to it's actual "size" and vice versa. Funslinger 03:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Every word is counted regardless of their size when doing an actual word count. Are you able to copy parts of the file into Microsoft Word? That should give you the actual word count (that's what I meant when I asked you earlier.) If you have a Google account, you can access this shared spreadsheet which estimates word counts from printed sources. I'm not sure how it would work with an ebook unless you're able to paginate it in order to provide the necessary figures that estimates the word count. Mhhutchins 04:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom Easton titles

Hold off on varianting these, and I'll check to see if they can be done automatically. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping there was a way to do them any other way, but it appears the only way is to variant each record individually. Sorry. Please continue if you like. Mhhutchins 01:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

For some reason some of these are appearing as variant titles in addition to a pseudonym. The title appears to be identical so I am pasting the title from the canonical record into the variant record and the variant title reference goes away. Funslinger 14:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to paste titles when creating variants for pseudonymous titles. Just change the name of the author in the lower section of the "Make Variant" page. If you're changing the title, you're doing the wrong thing. Mhhutchins 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not changing the title. But in some instances, the system creates the title in the new canonical record with an extra space or something along those lines thereby recognizing the pseudonym record title as a variant. Funslinger 17:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand. My response was based on your statement that you were "pasting the title from the canonical record into the variant record." You shouldn't be doing that. Just click on the link "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" and in the bottom section of the variant form change the Author1 field from the credited author to the canonical author, and submit. No further step is necessary to make a pseudonymously credited title record into a variant of one credited to the canonical author. After the submission is accepted, the variant title record will no longer appear on the pseudonym's summary page. It will now appear only on the canonical author's summary page. Mhhutchins 18:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand. I am doing just as you described on EVERY record. The pasting of the title is the fix to the fact that the system doesn't think the titles are identical thus treating it as a variant. I have only had to paste a title on the five occasions that the system thought it was a variant. Funslinger 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Since I don't understand what you're trying to do (as I said above), I'll bow out of the discussion and the handling of the submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You understand. You just don't know it yet. I have been making changes as you suggested. After reviewing Thomas A. Easton's biography, I noticed that some entries would read:
 
The Reference Library (Analog, March 1995) [only as by Tom Easton]
      Variant Title: The Reference Library (Analog, March 1995) - Tom Easton
 
Since the titles looked identical and were supposed to be identical, I copied the title from the canonical record then edited the pseudonym record and pasted the title in so that the system would not think it was a variant title. It worked as the "variant" title is no longer listed. Funslinger 20:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
To see what I've been talking about, check out Thomas A. Easton's biography and look at The Reference Library (Analog, March 30 1981) and The Reference Library (Analog, October 1978) entries. Funslinger 05:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah-ha! I see what you mean. There must have been some hidden character which wasn't copied when the variant was created. It was probably a space, because the system displays two spaces as one, but drops it if you edit the field. Thanks for the explanation and please accept my apology. Continue to correct any more of these you come across. Mhhutchins 14:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Another possibility is that the language didn't match. I saw that original record (Tom) had no language while the variant (Thomas A.) was English. This would also cause it to be displayed as a variant title, even if they're not. All I did was submit an update without any changes, because the system defaults to English (unless you've changed your user preferences). Thanks again. Mhhutchins 14:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There was two such cases (the 06-1997 & 07-08-1997 columns), I've taken the liberty to correct them. Hauck 14:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Before you go any further with these variant creations, let's see if we can get them done at least semi-automatically. I've asked one of the other editors to try and come up with a script which would create variants. The submissions would have to be moderated, but that's the easier part of the process. I'll keep you aware of the progress. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Change in title field of Analog, February 1961

I'm holding a submission to change the title of this record from Analog Science Fact -> Fiction, February 1961 to Analog Science Fact ⩜ Fiction, February 1961. Was this your intention? Mhhutchins 14:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Because that symbol looks more like the actual symbol on the cover than does "->". Funslinger 14:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Not on my computer. It's just a blank box. The symbol on the cover is an arc with an arrow pointing right. Mhhutchins 14:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks similar to an arc with an arrow pointing through it on my computer. Since it doesn't appear to work on all computers, I guess we shouldn't change it. Funslinger 15:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Working on a script to create variants

Perhaps you missed the posting I added earlier today (at the end of "Tom Easton titles"), but I've asked a fellow editor to look into writing a script which would semi-automate the creation of variants. Please hold off on making these variants until we can determine if this is possible. I'll let you know if it doesn't work it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Funslinger 22:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bear's Quantum Logic series

What is the source for adding the Forge of God novels to this series? Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion board post by Bear himself. I could be reading it wrong, however. After looking at it again, I see that what I thought was a comma is a period. Based on my re-reading of the post, I'm going to add a parent series called "Thistledown" and add the series Eon to it as well as the novelette "The Wind From a Burning Woman". Funslinger 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Semi-related follow-up: I accepted the submission putting The Wind from a Burning Woman into a new Thistledown, but then I see the proposal to make Eon a sub-series of that. And I see Eon contains The Way of All Ghosts, which seems should be treated the same way as "The Wind from a Burning Woman". Reading the post linked to above, I'm wondering if instead of having two series (and, presumably, moving "The Way of All Ghosts"), we should just rename the Eon series to Thistledown. It doesn't look like Bear considers the novels a series in their own right. I'm not big on series definition and management, so I'll leave it to the two of you. Thanks. --MartyD 12:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
If you go to Bear's website, he listed the three novels in a series called Eon. Funslinger 12:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I accepted that submission and the other one. Thanks for the pointer. --MartyD 13:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Introduction to The 1988 Annual World's Best SF

I rejected your submission to drop the parentheses of Wollheim's Introduction. You are probably right that it isn't part of the title as stated in the book. However, we keep (or rather add) the suffix to avoid mixing up with same-titled essays: we would end up with lots of Introductions by Wollheim and we have a need to tell them apart. For details, please refer to the penultimate paragraph of this help chapter. Thanks, Stonecreek 18:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Title fields of Analog records

I'm accepting the submissions to change the titles of issues of Analog, based on the cover image. I'm hoping you're making these changes based on the interior title, which trumps the cover title. Are you working from the actual copies? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that you were using the title that appears on the cover because the cover title is listed for issues between February 1960 and September 1960 (Astounding/Analog Science Fact & Fiction) when the title in the TOC was still Astounding Science Fact & Fiction. Plus, if the policy is to use the actual story title at the top of the story overriding the title listed in the TOC, why wouldn't the actual title on the cover override the title in the TOC? <Funslinger 15:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)>
Apples and oranges. The titles of all publications (as opposed to their contents) are from their title pages, not from their covers. We consider the page on which the publisher's colophon appears to be the title page of a periodical. The titles of contents are from the page on which the content begins. I was not involved in the creation or updating of any issues of Analog, even though I have all issues between 1970 and circa 2005, when I stopped subscribing. I can pull out my issues to check them, but I would hope the editors who've done primary verifications of the records did that. I would suggest contacting those who are still active to ask them what was their basis for title entry before making any further changes (unless you have copies and can verify the changes in the records). Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I won't change any more titles until I can verify what is on the title page. Thanks. <Funslinger 17:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)>

Rusch's Diving Universe

What is your source for the series numbering being given to the shortfiction in this series? Mhhutchins 22:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing official. I've seen it used elsewhere to order short fiction in the proper sequence in a series containing novels as well. <Funslinger 23:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)>
That's right, you can use "0.5", "3.5" and so on to add titles that belong "in between" normally ordered series titles. However, it can be tricky and we generally need to have some source in order to do it right.
For example, take Michele Bardsley's "Broken Heart, Oklahoma" stories. Our ordering is taken from her Web site. Without author-provided information, it would be hard to tell that "Harry Little, Leprechaun" (44 pages) is considered number 11.5 in the series, but "Naked Disclosure" (45 Kindle pages) is considered number 11. By the way, Amazon gets it wrong and lists Broken Heart: Visitor's Pass, a collection of short stories and excerpts, as volume 11. Ahasuerus 00:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
So if the ordering is arbitrary, why not just list them chronologically? (The system automatically lists non-numbered titles chronologically within the series.) Mhhutchins 00:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
But if there are any numbered novels in the series, the entire list will not be chronological since all unnumbered items will appear at the end (albeit all unnumbered items will be chronologically ordered at the bottom). My intent was to place the short fiction in its true chronological spot. I used two decimal places since it will be possible for more than nine pieces of short fiction to fall between two novels. <Funslinger 00:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)>
If the system ordered all entries chronologically rather than ordering by number and then ordering unnumbered items chronologically, this wouldn't be necessary to keep everything in true chronological order. <Funslinger 00:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)>
The system displays the numbered titles by the assigned number first, then lists any unnumbered titles by the date of publication. If the system displayed every title chronologically (by publication date), and disregarded the assigned numbering, then it wouldn't correctly display those series in which titles were published out-of-order. (Ahasuerus goes into that matter further.) Mhhutchins 01:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand that. The default listing could be by number, but wouldn't it be nice to have the option to list a series in chronological order? <Funslinger 02:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)>
Sure, let me create a feature request... Ahasuerus 02:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The series order used by ISFDB is not always the same as the order of publication. To quote Help:
  • If you know the order in which the books in the series are supposed to be read, you can number them starting with 1. ... Please note that some series are very linear (e.g. Harry Potter) and it's easy to tell how to assign series number to individual entries. Other series can have different numbering scheme, e.g. it can reflect the series' publication order, internal chronological order, intended publication order, "author recommended" order, etc. Please don't change pre-existing numbering schemes unless you are sure that they are in error. Any series with this sort of ambiguity in internal ordering should have the sequence worked out on the Series project page. This includes prequels, which can be listed first in the series, before the main entries; or listed after the main entries; or even split into a separate series which then becomes a subseries in a superseries comprising both the original series and the prequels. ...
Ahasuerus 00:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Just noticed that I forgot to update Help when I added support for decimal numbers. Fixed now. Ahasuerus 01:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest creating a subseries for the short fiction, much like the author does on her website. It gives separate order for the short fiction. If you agree, please cancel the submissions being held, and create the subseries. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that the submissions have been cancelled, I'll go ahead and removed "0.01" and "0.02" which I approved without thinking a couple of days ago. Ahasuerus 02:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Notifying primary verifiers

As it was pointed out to you in an earlier post, you should notify primary verifiers of any changes you wish to make in primary verified records. There is a list at the bottom of each publication record which provides a link to the editors who have verified a record. If the first field "Primary" has a notice that it has been "Verified by...", you should go to that person's talk page and leave a message about changing the records. Some editors have a posted a notification preference at the top of their talk page. Your actions should follow their preference, either to leave a message before or after making a submission to change a primary verified record. I'm holding your submissions to update the issues of Lightspeed until you've notified the primary verifier. Thanks for your cooperation. Mhhutchins 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ISFDB is a very helpful resource which more users would help to maintain if the process weren't so cumbersome. While the system is relatively easy to use, it would be much better to take advantage of automation. Having the system automatically create an entry on the verifier's talk page when a user enters suggested changes would make it much easier on users to submit possible corrections. Especially for new and infrequent users who would have to keep reviewing the policies practically every time they stumbled upon a correction. Most users probably don't even bother to go through the trouble of posting a message on some talk page when they would be quite happy to click a link and enter suggested corrections. The verifier (or someone with the privilege) must accept the submission before any data is changed anyway so why put such a burden on the people who are trying to help keep the data as accurate as possible?
Hopefully, I can continue to help with corrections when possible. I really don't often have the time to go to a talk page and type a lengthy explanation of a correction and therefore the correction could possibly be overlooked as I might not remember to contact the verifier when I do have time for such things. Oh well, I'll do my best to remember the errors when I next log in with time to contact the verifier. Again, this is a very usefully resource that sometimes makes my job easier. Thanks to you guys for maintaining it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funslinger (talk • contribs) .
Explanations don't have to be lengthy. "The cover art credit for the October 2010 issue of Lightspeed is misspelled." I'm not sure that software could be written that would automatically post a message on a primary editor's talk page, considering all the nuances of human-to-human interaction in communicating. If you know how that's possible, please suggest it on one of the community pages.
Also, the verifier of a record is not the person who accepts or rejects a submission to change the record. That's done by moderators, who don't have a lot of time to be the go-between for editors, even though often times we're put in a position to do it. Believe me, if the system could do this automatically, and with the same results, it would be a welcome relief. As moderators, we believe that it is important to respect the work that was done by the primary verifier. If you have gone through the effort to create, update, and verify a publication record, I believe you'd want to know if another editor wants to change it. This is not to say the verifier is always right. As humans, we all make mistakes, and depend on other humans to point them out when they're found. One of the important aspects of the ISFDB, and the fact that much of its data can be considered quite reliable, is that it's an effort by human beings and not robot-driven software. Thanks for the contributions you're making and I hope that you continue your efforts. The more you hang around, the less bothersome you'll find in communicating with other editors. It's this communication that creates a feeling of community which is a vital part of our effort to build the ISFDB. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't be an easy coding problem, but an example: The submission that I made to correct the cover artist's misspelled name has the proposed change in the submission. I can click on my pending request and see which fields were proposed as changes (there is also a Notes field were the submitter can put a brief comment). The system could simply send an email and/or post a comment on the verifier's talk page indicating a requested change and give the verifier access to the submission for verification purposes only. The verifier could then go to the submission and review the requested changes and either approve or decline the request. Then a moderator could process approved submissions while declined submissions would automatically be deleted. <Funslinger 22:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)>
Sounds reasonable until you bring in the messaging part. It would require creating a separate software program that can function between two distinctly different systems: the ISFDB wiki and the database itself. At the moment the only connections between them that I'm aware of are HTML links. It would be similar to notifying a Wikipedia editor when another editor suggests a change to a record the editor created on the Internet Movie Database. I don't write software so I can't say if such a system could be implemented. If you post the request on the ISFDB:Community Portal, the software people could tell you if it's doable. Mhhutchins 22:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Email is always an option. Verifier's could be required to provide a working email address in order to be a primary verifier. The email notification could also include a link directly into the submission in question. The ISFDB wiki is always there if the verifier requires additional input from the requester. This moves the burden from the casual user to the verifier where it should be.<Funslinger 04:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)>

Field Notes

Hi, I reverted your transfer of this item to POEM, due to the notes in Analog Science Fiction and Fact, November 2014. If you feel that this piece is still to be considered as a POEM, please contact the primary verifier. And please do so for every change affecting a primary verified publication. Thanks, Stonecreek 14:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I did contact him. He said to change it to fiction. It's certainly not an essay. <Funslinger 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)>

Analog, June 2015

Hi! You've corrected me several times based on your digital copies of this magazine, so I'm asking for some help with this issue. The contents and the title page do not identify the author of this issue's editorial. The author is probably Trevor Quachri, but there's no identification. Maybe the author is given in the digital version. If so, could you list the author as a variant, and put a note in the note field that the author is identified via the digital version? Or at least let me know who the author is, and I can do it MLB 01:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not listed in my digital edition. <Funslinger 03:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)>
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Funslinger&oldid=491462"