Talk:Coda (document editor)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | On 6 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from coda.io to Coda (document editor). The result of the discussion was Moved. |
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Requested edit 21 June 2022 edit
I'd also like to share a proposed expansion of the current page, to address the "expansion needed" tag and make other improvements, if anyone is willing to review it for potential bias as required by WP:COI. Brian.klein.1k (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: I have separated the edit request from the RM and added the appropriate template. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Mckaysalisbury: for reviewing! One question: the page still has a "needs expansion" tag at the top. Does the introductory section need expansion or was the tag just overlooked from the prior version? If the introductory section does need expansion, I'd like to propose a second attempt at trying to make a shorter, more neutral introductory paragraph:
- Brian.klein.1k (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mckaysalisbury: I'm thinking the introductory section does not need expansion then and the tag could be removed without changes? Because if the introduction is only summarizing the Features section, which itself is just one paragraph long, a one-sentence summary seems appropriate. Or do you feel the introduction needs expansion as the tag says? Brian.klein.1k (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can understand that you don't like it; I don't like it either, but I still believe more than a single sentence is ideal, and expansion is desirable. I'm just not sure what that should be. So, I agree with the tag as is. McKay (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mckaysalisbury: Got it. It sounds like we're looking for a summary of the Features section that is longer than one sentence, but shorter than the Features section itself. Maybe about 3 sentences? That would be about half the length of the Features section itself. How about this?
- Brian.klein.1k (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can understand that you don't like it; I don't like it either, but I still believe more than a single sentence is ideal, and expansion is desirable. I'm just not sure what that should be. So, I agree with the tag as is. McKay (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mckaysalisbury: I'm thinking the introductory section does not need expansion then and the tag could be removed without changes? Because if the introduction is only summarizing the Features section, which itself is just one paragraph long, a one-sentence summary seems appropriate. Or do you feel the introduction needs expansion as the tag says? Brian.klein.1k (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mckaysalisbury: It flows logically that if the introduction should not summarize the Features nor the Development section, and those are the only two sections, then the one-sentence summary is probably appropriate and should not require expansion at this time. My intention was to follow your/the tag's feedback, but it seems OK for a page this short.
References
- ^ a b Newman, Jared (February 23, 2022). "Coda's new features take on Microsoft Word and Google Docs". Fast Company. Retrieved May 22, 2022.
- ^ a b Newman, Jared (October 12, 2021). "Move over, Microsoft Word: The race to reinvent document editing". Fast Company. Retrieved May 22, 2022.
- ^ a b Finnegan, Matthew (March 4, 2022). "Coda and Notion turn up the heat on Microsoft Office". Computerworld. Retrieved May 22, 2022.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
McCracken 2018was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Wiggers 2019was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Wiggers 2018was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Newton 2017was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Shrivastava 2021was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
SearchContentManagement 2019was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Requested move 21 June 2022 edit
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved, noting WP:RMNOMIN (non-admin closure) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Coda.io → Coda (document editor) – I have disclosed a WP:COI as I work in marketing at Coda. The current page name is the URL of the Coda website but is not how most reliable sources refer to the company or service. Most sources just call it Coda. Coda.io was most likely adopted because Wikipedia has more than two dozen pages on various topics that go by the name "Coda," so there is a palpable need to disambiguate. I suggest "Coda (document editor)," which is more consistent with how reliable sources generally refer to Coda.Brian.klein.1k (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)