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.

Article policies

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

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 regarding the reliability of Coda Story

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]

COI Tag

@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 Kikirikipiopiopioz Dr. 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]