| 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. |
Article policies
|
| 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: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
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)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has an RFC regarding the reliability of Coda Story
edit
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)
COI Tag
edit@Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d,, which editor(s) are you flagging for COI? Superb Owl (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Superb Owl That would be Kikirikipiopiopioz Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- Go ahead! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)