Contents

Talk:Coda Media

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coda Media article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 8 November 2017 by reviewer Sulfurboy (talk · contribs).

Minor edit. I changed a reference to "gays" to "gay people." Gay is an adjective which is not subject to pluralization.David Cary Hart (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has an RFC for possible consensus regarding the reliability of Coda Story. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d,, which editor(s) are you flagging for COI? Superb Owl (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl That would be KikirikipiopiopiozDr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I don't see any inline flags concerning their additions. At what point can we remove that template? Would a talk page template be more appropriate? Superb Owl (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well given the fact they wrote more than 50% of the article, I think a more encompassing COI maintenance tag was more appropriate than sprinkling in a few inline tags. We can remove that template when others have determined the article is written neutrally, non-promotionally, etc. TBH, this article isn’t in terrible shape, despite the fact it’s COI-ridden. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did a good job keeping what was valuable and removing the rest. I agree that it seems to be in good shape and would be in favor of removing the tag pending others' input Superb Owl (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d,, it's been 8 days - should we go ahead and remove the tag? Superb Owl (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]