Talk:CODA (2021 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:45, 3 September 2021

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

References to use

~~Gloucester-Set Film 'CODA' Debuts At Sundance~~

Marlee Matlin on Sundance opener ‘CODA’: ‘I hope it will create a tidal wave’ pastebin

Sundance 2021: 'CODA' star Marlee Matlin talks inclusion, calls on Hollywood to 'hire more deaf actors'

Sundance: 'CODA' Costume Designer Stresses Authenticity While Styling for Deaf Community

Online Sundance Opens To Virtual Ovation For Deaf Drama

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‘CODA,’ ‘Zola’ Set For 2021 Sundance London Program

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review aggregators

Regarding the descriptions of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, there are no guidelines requiring a specific wording. Just because an editor or two have perpetuated a specific wording across many articles does not mean that other ways to word these review aggregators is forbidden. If anything, it is WP:OWNership to act like they have the right to change the wording to match the wording found on many articles that they themselves had updated. That cookie-cutter language is fallacious in assuming that readers know and understand RT and MC well, but we are not all movie buffs. When we write this encyclopedia, we have to write it for laypersons. That means disclosing that RT only sees reviews as positive or negative with zero in-between. As for Metacritic, it has that in-between category and also provides a prose-based summary. These aggregators should also follow commentary about how critics received the film, explaining what was appealing to them as a whole (if possible). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

WaltCD, WP:NOTAMB says, "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." For both CODA (2021 film) and Coda (2019 film), both topics are disambiguated by their release year. We do not generally add hatnotes to film articles that have the same title but are separated by year. Readers that just search "Coda" will wind up at the disambiguation page. I am not seeing what makes this case different enough to warrant hatnotes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: I understand what you're saying, but respectfully disagree. The year the films were released is so close. Often times movies get copyrighted but don't get released for a year, two, or more, after. This appeared to be the case here. The 2021 film is currently getting tremendous praise and attention, but not yet widely released. Perhaps in the future this disambiguation could be rendered unnecessary. Currently, however, searching various databases, such as JustWatch.com, brings up just the 2019 version, with no year listed. As I mentioned in my original edit, having renowned actor Patrick Stewart lends credence to the film, making it easy for one to confuse a person into thinking that film is the Sundance Film Festival Award Winning film. Wikipedia can be a part of stopping the confusion.

(I apologize in advance if I've done this "Talk" reply improperly).

WaltCD (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Stewart's film, while released in 2019, got much more attention in mid-2020, so I guess I can accept that it is more of a one-year difference than two. Another editor stripped the details from the hatnotes, but I restored some back. I think we should avoid language like "award-winning" as puffery. I still don't feel strongly about having hatnotes, though, not having seen precedent. Maybe it suffices as a short-term approach. (And you used the talk page correctly, just indent your comments with colons before what you write.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No similarities whatsoever. Just typing in "coda” on a search line at Wikipedia leads to the Coda#Films section which distinguishes all three known films with the title. Wylie pedia @ 08:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2021

It has been proposed in this section that CODA (2021 film) be renamed and moved to CODA (film).

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

CODA (2021 film) → CODA (film) – WP:SMALLDIFFS rather supports this previous title; this is precisely a case where "small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics". Nardog (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2pou (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: converted to a full discussion since the same rationale was used in the move by Bovineboy2008 to get the article at its current location in the first place. Seeking more input. Additional courtesy ping @Erik: as retargeter of the redirect. -2pou (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to CODA. As a request to revert an undiscussed move, this should have been handled as a technical request before starting a discussion proposing a move to the longer title. Regardless, anyone searching for all-caps CODA almost certainly wants this film, which has been getting thousands of hits per day recently, compared to CODA (company), which gets 16.[1] A hatnote will take care of the small minority. Station1 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 :<small>This is a contested technical request ([[Special:Permalink/1042072256|permalink]]). [[User:2pou|2pou]] ([[User talk:2pou|talk]]) 03:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)</small>
 *{{Re|Nardog}} converted to a full discussion since the same rationale was used in the move by {{u|Bovineboy2008}} to get the article at its current location in the first place. Seeking more input. Additional courtesy ping {{ping|Erik}} as retargeter of the redirect. -[[User:2pou|2pou]] ([[User talk:2pou|talk]]) 03:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Move to [[CODA]]'''. As a request to revert an undiscussed move, this should have been handled as a technical request before starting a discussion proposing a move to the longer title. Regardless, anyone searching for all-caps [[CODA]] almost certainly wants this film, which has been getting thousands of hits per day recently, compared to [[CODA (company)]], which gets 16.[https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-year&pages=CODA_(company)|CODA_(2021_film)|CODA_(film)|CODA_(mixed-use_development)|Coda|Coda_(Led_Zeppelin_album)|Coda_(music)|Coda_(1987_film)|Coda_(2019_film)] A hatnote will take care of the small minority. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 03:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)