Talk:Samsung Galaxy S6

Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge

I have created its own article, but questions remain whether it deserves its own. I say yes just like how the very similar Samsung Galaxy Note Edge has its own page independent from the Galaxy Note 4. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I keep saying: That one was separately notable because it was the first of its kind, and had more of a distinct history (i.e. the Youm concepts). Galaxy S6 Edge is merely an evolution of the Note Edge concept, and making a second article would just lead to redundancy due to their shared history. Thus, it's not separately notable. I go by the precedent of the iPhone 6 article, which also covers the 6 Plus because aside from the screen, it is practically the same device. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

p.s. This doesn't go to AFD. It's a merge discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Heres my examples of articles which have similar separate articles:

• Samsung Galaxy Note 4→Samsung Galaxy Note Edge
• Samsung Galaxy S5→Samsung Galaxy S5 Mini
• Samsung Galaxy S4→Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini
• Samsung Galaxy S4→Samsung Galaxy S4 Active

It is quite normal for Galaxy articles to have a separate article for their variants. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Again; the first one I dispute. The Mini ones are not identical to their counterparts (They are actually aimed as low or mid-range devices, meaning they are related in name and aesthetics only). Plus, we handled the S5 Active differently by covering it as just a section in the main S5 article. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And seriously, the iPhone 6 Plus should have it's own article. Sure it shares a name, but specs and price wise it is like comparing the Note 4 and the S5. Entirely different phones. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The only difference in specs is the screen and size, and that it's unofficially bendable. Everything else is the same. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I could say the same about the Note Edge (except that it is bent on purpose)... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There should not be a separate S6 Edge article for the same reason there is not a separate iPhone 6 Plus article. Having slightly stronger metal and extra edges is not enough to have two articles. Frmorrison (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: So what about the list of articles above which have separate articles? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The S4 Mini and S4 are different models, not just variants of the same device. Viper151 correctly merged these two articles. Frmorrison (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: Again, the S4 Mini and S5 Mini are not variants of the S4 and S5 in this sense. They are low-end devices with a subset of their functionality and design for name recognition, but are otherwise completely different products. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A reset

Okay, so now that the dust has settled a bit, let's resolve this peacefully. I still go by the idea that this is pretty much the same as the iPhone 6/6 Plus scenario, except even more so given that, aside from the curves, their specifications are exactly the same. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

But I could say the same about the Note 4 and Note Edge. However a tentatively support a good merge, ensuring no content or images is lost from the readers perspective. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I think the Note Edge was a bit more deserving of separate coverage because it was quite polarizing in comparison to the Note 4, and had some distinct aspects to its development history (i.e. those prototypes). But yeah, I was going to put that S6 Edge picture in the article too. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: "I was going to put that Note Edge picture": Assuming you meant to say Galaxy S6 Edge not Note Edge? It is a picture of the S6, I scoured the internet for it too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can someone auto protect this because there is a lot of vandalism by new usersJC713 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have put in a request at RPP. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I support this motion, even though it would remove my ability to add edits. Most of the current device description categories are written in an overly negative tone not matching real world hands-on reviews to this point, not to mention they're simply poorly written. Ivstan14 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Schemetomakecream has been making problematic edits on this and several other articles. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I could read them just now, what about page protection? I will ask. Geunineart (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I put one in at WP:RPP about an hour ago I think. Seems to be some big sources have published some Android Muffin rumours and now everyone thinks we need those rumours too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

the article states the the galaxy s5 is going to be released on April 10th 2015. However the galaxy s6 is going to be released please fix this typoScaryboy15 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Joe Scaryboy15 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015

Two things. The side bar that lists the model numbers it says "SM-G925F (Edge)" however the SM-G925I is also an edge model, is should list as "SM-G925I (Edge)". Second edit: last line of the second paragraph of the intro, "including a quad HD display and a more reliable fingerprint scanner." quad HD links to Graphics_display_resolution#Quad_Extended_Graphics_Array which is incorrect, it should link to Graphics_display_resolution#QHD_.282560x1440.29 instead. SGS6 is 2560x1440 which is WQHD (or QHD for short) not WQXGA which is 2560x1600. One is 16:9 ratio whereas the other is 16:10 ratio. Thanks. 60.242.49.115 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I made the changes. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015

I needed to put the logo on the article, can you help me to put the logo please. Andrewding5917 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You haven't given us an image that we can use on the article. Please see the image use policy before suggesting or uploading an image. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

Under the Development subheading Rumours surrounding the Galaxy S5's successor began to surface in January 2015 S5sould be S6 1.121.97.95 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Why? the rumors are about the S5's successor, which is the S6. The S6's successor would presumably be the S7 Cannolis (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015

I would like the line "The Galaxy S6 line retains similarities in design to previous models, but now uses a unibody metal frame..." to be changed to "The Galaxy S6 line retains similarities in design to previous models, but now uses a unibody frame made of aluminium alloy 6013 Bloobee (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Done I found and added a ref for that. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2015

| website = www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxys6/galaxy-s6/

Yubsdesign (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+ Merge

Hi following the long hiatus i've been from wikipedia, I noticed the new articles that are of my interest that came in which includes the S6 and Note 5. I have seen how article consensus have happened through talks and history and since then I noticed a pattern for the S6 wherein the S6 and S6 Edge variants are merged into a single article citing only a few differences not meriting for it to have its own article unlike the case of an Active or Mini variant. So in line with this and the recent release of a similar variant with again minor differences which is the S6 Edge+, I propose that this bigger variant be also merged into the main S6 article for the same reasons cited by both Vipersnake151 and Fmorrison above for the S6 Edge. GadgetsGuy (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

S6 Edge+ is a different device in a different market segment (phablet). It is closer in nature to the Note 5 than the S6. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well you were actually using the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus argument for the S6 and S6 Edge discussion as stated above. It actually shows clearly samsung is targeting the former combo with the intro of the S6 Edge +. So if that is the case then the iPhone 6 and 6 plus devices as well as the S6 Edge should merit their own articles if catergory would be the factor as the S6 Edge is in the rounded screen category and the iPhone 6 Plus is in the Phablet category. GadgetsGuy (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The iPhone comparison is a different situation. These two products were unveiled and marketed together, and are almost identical. Galaxy S6 Edge+ is a different product with slightly different specifications. Samsung has pulled this type of downgrade/upgrade reversioning before (see the "Neo" version of the S5) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your point that there are minor differences in the specifications of the S6 Edge+ compared to those of the S6 and S6 Edge yet that is also precisely the reason why upgrade/downgrade versions of some other Galaxy devices such as the S III Neo, S5 Neo, and S5 LTE-A did not merit their own articles even if these devices have a slightly different specifications as these could just be merely added and specified in the main article such as what was did with the S6 and S6 Edge. GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the GS6 E+ should be moved to the Note 5 instead, because GS6 E+ is a sibling to the Note 5 as not just both their sizes are the same, but other factors like announcement date which is the same. Xizuki (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

On it's own merits, it's a small article so it should could be merged. But, e.g. as the substitute for the Note 5 in Europe, there's a little utility in keeping this separate as it's straddles both lines. Widefox; talk 09:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Further arguments to either reinstate the article as a seperate one or merge it here is discussed here [1] as it seems that it was unilaterally merged with Note 5. GadgetsGuy (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2016

The S6 features other hardware improvements as well, including a 1440p display, a new in-house system-on-chip that utilizes a 14 nm FinFET manufacturing process, and an improved fingerprint scanner.

{{No citation}}

That information is not citatesd

87.165.104.242 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: As per WP:LEAD, content in the lead doesn't need to be sourced if there's sources in the article. Stickee (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy S6 Merge request (March 2018)

As evident in Samsung Galaxy S8 there has been consolidation between the varying subsets of the S8 series. Within the Samsung Galaxy S7 entry there was no information about the S7 active, I ended adding relevant information to the root article (in good faith). It would rational to merge the relevant information from the S6 Active (at least specs) into the S6 article.68.229.81.60 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy S6 Active merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge as proposed; short text, context, and by analogy with the other Salamsung Galaxy S models. Klbrain (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Samsung Galaxy S6 Active is a part of Samsung Galaxy S6. So, I suggest merge Samsung Galaxy S6 Active article to Samsung Galaxy S6 article. Hajoon0102 💬 15:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge and Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+ was redirected to Samsung Galaxy S6 article. —Hajoon0102 💬 15:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because the S6 Edge+ was redirected to Samsung Galaxy S6 article does not mean this should also be merged. SMBMovieFan (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a similar case and Samsung Galaxy S6 Active actually part of the Samsung Galaxy S6. —Hajoon0102 💬 15:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support The S5 Active and S7 Active are covered under the overarching S5 and S7 line articles, respectively. (Although I guess the S7 Active is "mentioned", and barely that, more than "covered".) I see nothing about the S6 Active that makes it more-different from the rest of the S6 line than those other models are from their own lines, to warrant a standalone article. Plus, the only information quoted in the Reception section, the Verge comparison, is actually half about the non-Active version of the S6, making it even more appropriate/useful as part of a combined article. FeRDNYC (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support as stated above the S5 Active and S7 Active are in the overarching articles, further the S20FE and S21FE dont have there own articles and are mentioned in the larger S20 and S21 article and i feel this is the same sort of situation, while there are differences i think they should be there own section in the S6 page instead of its own Tryp1c Ac3 (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Merge just like you said 174.27.4.51 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2023 (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.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

S6 Duos

What about this variant? https://www.devicespecifications.com/de/model/ad4834f8 Polluks ★ 11:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)