Talk:Sandbagging

Gym

Resolved

– No such entry in the page as of 2011.

Why would someone sandbag at the gym?

128.113.146.196 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant

Resolved

– See WP:DAB.

Why is this categorised as a disambiguation page? There's a true disambiguation page at "Sandbag (disambiguation)". This one is just a largely-redundant list of specific uses of one meaning of the term. Should it be recategorised or even deleted? 209.150.62.29 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a disambiguation page because it disambiguates between articles, e.g. multiple articles on "sandbagging". See WP:DAB on how and why disambiguation pages are created. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007-12-26 Automated pywikipediabot message

FYI

– Automated notice.

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus entries

Please do not add entries, like for bookkeeping or climbing, unless there is an article or article section to which to link. Any entries without this much encyclopedic content behind them (presumably including sources at the linked article) will be considered WP:NFT and WP:V violations and deleted. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social v Media

I added a 'media' definition, but it might be better to fold the dead link to 'social' into it and create an actual article. I'm dubious that this is a common-usage term for social interactions, but there's definitely a technical term for news interviews cut/framed to attack the interviewee. Per the request for sources, http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/21/14683942/pewdiepie-controversy-youtube-drama can be seen using the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.218.242 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]