Talk:Coda (music)

For the earlier history of this article, see Coda

Burkhart
Who is Charles Burkhart (googling turns up <1,000 entries), and why are his comments notable? Further, why is he linked to? Runnerupnj 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Charles Burkhart, until recently professor at CUNY, is an internationally recognized expert on Schenkerian analysis and author of numerous music textbooks, especially ISBN 0155062182 Anthology for Musical Analysis. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you write a stub on him? It always looks funny when someone is cited as a reference and there is a red link on their name. Rigadoun 23:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (hell no its music)

Examples
It seems to me that a simple list of songs including codas will be too long and lacking organization; perhaps it is better to explain, on a song by song basis, which section is the coda and how it is differentiated from the rest of the song. Rigadoun 23:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. However, the examples section is not meant to be an exhaustive list - It's purpose is to provide the user with (only a couple of) examples, so that he/she can listen to them, and be satisfied with something more tangible than textual technical description of a musical phenomenon (Which is definitely an important and integral part of the page). Ideally, it should prod the user to listen to atleast one of the songs, making it amply clear what a coda is. --Amrishkelkar 14:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to show a few selections of sheet music that show the ending coda symbol instead? I mean, you're probably not gonna "hear" a coda when you listen to song.  Ace Frahm 15:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Codetta
This section starts off well, but after about the second sentence the musical terminology is so thick that it might as well be written in a foreign language to me, who is not musical at all. Someone who understands what this is about should rephrase it or translate it into English! Thryduulf (not signed in)

False coda
Is it worth adding something about 'false' codas? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2022

 * 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: No consensus that the music term is primary by either long-term significance or usage. Most of the supporters spent the RM stating in agreement that "it's the primary topic by long-term significance!" over and over again. Meanwhile, opponents have provided extensive data against primary status by usage, and also plausible competitors for long-term significance (phonological codas being brought up repeatedly). (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by longterm significance. Most if not all of the other uses stem from the historical musical term. I have no objection to CODA still redirecting to the disambiguation page, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Coda (music) → Coda
 * Coda → Coda (disambiguation)
 * Oppose maybe it's primary by long-term significance, but not by page views. I don't think the gap is large enough for there to be a definitive primary topic, so DAB should remain at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to that, see the pageviews for the pages on the disambig. Most of them are for either the musical term or CODA, in all uppercase. Additionally, the 2019 film and Led Zeppelin album are both directly based on the musical term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looking over the disambiguation page, many of the entries there derive their meaning from the musical term. Given that and its long-term significance, I think this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC situation. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. While not necessarily primary re usage, the term is certainly primary re long-term significance. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, clearly the most significant in the long term. Graham 87 00:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure whether they make Primary Topic, but have added the two most common usages to the top of the Dab page to help many readers. Pam  D  08:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Although this is provided for at WP:DABORDER ("In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below."), my edit has been reverted by someone who didn't like it. Pam  D  20:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Primary topic by long-term significance? Complete nonsense! Even if that article weren't just an extended glossary entry, there would be absolutely no reason to treat the topic as more notable than the coda of a syllable (a very, very basic concept in phonology), the end segment of a film, the final dance of a ballet, the child of deaf adults (the lower-case is common and even recommended by some style guides), or any of the three dozen other topics with the name. Etymology doesn't matter, and the fact that the music meaning is the one most editors are familiar with and therefore the one most likely to be what first comes to mind is also of no relevance. As for usage, there's also clearly no primary topic here: the recent data isn't helpful (almost all of the outgoing traffic from the dab page is for the recently released film), but looking back to an earlier period (Nov 2020), I see that only between a quarter and a third of the outgoing traffic from the dab page was for the music article (or as little as 16% of its views, which means that only one of six visitors to the dab page proceeded to follow that link). – Uanfala (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for several reasons.
 * The main reason is, I would not be so quick to conclude that the concept in music is clearly more significant than the concept in linguistics. I think they are of comparable long-term significance.
 * It is commonplace for people to search using lowercase letters for things that are actually uppercase. (This is in contrast to the reverse situation, where people searching with uppercase letters or special characters are not so likely to be looking for the lowercase/ordinary topic, and ideas like WP:DIFFCAPS are based on that theory.) We should not overly discount the topics involving "CODA" in uppercase or as an acronym.
 * Of course, "being the original source of the name is also not determinative". I think the origin of a term doesn't have as much bearing on long-term significance as some others suggest, and it has no bearing at all on usage.
 * I would conclude there is no primary topic either by usage or long-term significance, and the disambiguation page should remain at the base name. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose too generic and many readers looking for the film (though recent has 1,453,980 views compared with only 16,737[] for the music meaning) probably won't search in all caps per Adumbrativus.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this move goes through, people will still be one click away from the film article if a link to the film is included in the hatnote at Coda. It won't hinder navigation to the film for readers who didn't care about the musical term, but it will help navigation for those who do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should send a significant number of readers onto an unrelated topic, in some cases like Talk:Man bites dog I think its OK to send readers onto that article even if it gets views at at least its likely primary by long-term significance but in this case even that's dubious especially if per Uanfala child of deaf adults (of which the film is based on) is often written in lower case.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Pageviews, smageviews, we have a topic here with crystal-clear long-lasting encyclopedic significance that far far surpasses any of the others. Also, WP:DIFFCAPS dictates that yes we do discount CODA topics. I will readily and happily concede that a musical coda being the origin of most of these uses counts for nothing; I don't think the primary significance criterion rests on that, however. Red   Slash  19:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the musical term is the top dictionary definition for the word "coda", but it isn't the primary topic for an encyclopedia. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 19:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Coda, coda, and CODA are different things. CODA (as in the film) is an acronym and coda as in the musical element is not all uppercase letters. Coda can also be used as a theme in fandom, which takes its etymological roots from the concepts of the musical Coda, but it's not 100% the exact same thing. CODA (caplocks, as in that film) is the identity of a group of people, and I think it'd be pretty awful to get rid of that page. I say we need to keep the disambiguation and people can decide for themselves if they mean "coda" as in the musical element or CODA as in "Children of Deaf Adults" because not everyone is expecting to find the same thing. :) Jnm5505 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is your oppose argument here exactly? Because I did state that I am not arguing that CODA should not point somewhere else. The primary topic of CODA is still ambiguous, see WP:DIFFCAPS for why the musical term should still be primary for the non-capitalized word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The musical term is the PT by way of long-term significance. Not to mention that the film and acronym its name is derived from are written in caps; see WP:DIFFCAPS. Calidum  02:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons that have been well articulated by Uanfala and Adumbrativus. Colin M (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.