Talk:Spy-fi (subgenre)

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Include anime

I really think this should include anime series that fit to this description as well, like Najica Blitz Tactics, and not stay merely focused on live movies and series.--Hard Core Rikki (talk • contribs) 09:47, 24 March 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Techno thrillers

why arn't any techno thrillers here?, i don't see why they can't fit into the hard SF cartoryJoeyjojo 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions

Is there a reason that anime titles are divided from the movies, TV series, video games, and RPG? Seems like there's a strong precedent here for just having one big list. Burrito --Burrito Al Pastor (talk • contribs) 08:37, 21 September 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Sources

How about some sources? Who uses this term? "Techno-thriller" is an established term for this kind of story (http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/1636), but without some sources outside of blogs, discussion groups, and marketing copy, "spy-fi" sounds like just another non-notable neologism. RLetson 17:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Man

How can Danger Man/Secret Agent be included. There is no science fiction element to the storiesREVUpminster (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem on the article

It seems the same source is being repeated without being marked. Does anybody know the template to deal with multiple citation markings?--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support split

User:Swpb, User:Mad Hatter We need to make a split here because there is too many topics here to be listed in one page. Better we create a separate list for it. See list of space opera media as an example.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As if it needed to be said again, I oppose this split on the grounds that it violates WP:SPLIT. As noted on my talk page, linking to a user is not the same thing as pinging them, which is what you seem to have been trying to do. Make no mistake; if you want to re-introduce a split here or anywhere else I've undone Mad Hatter, you'd better have a real consensus to back it up. —swpb^T 18:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: what is your issue with the split? That essay is too long to read. Tell me which section is relevant. I looked at the ANI report against User:Mad Hatter and other editors seem to agree with his move. What is your real issue with the split? And why is one editor opposing split. How about trying to build consensus at your end as well?--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at a different ANI from me, or are you just willfully ignoring the reply by The Big Bad Wolfowitz, just as you are willfully ignoring the very clear problem with the split that I gave above? If you want respect from other editors, don't ask them to repeat themselves. If you want to do a split that is 100% against the explicit guideline, you need more support. As it happens, this page is one of the worst of the very bad splits -- it has a readable prose size of only 1.5 kilobytes! You might have different ideas about what makes an article too long, but your ideas are not supported by consensus. I'd advise you to find something better to do with your time than waste it like this. —swpb^T 13:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per Taeyebaar. Split might be a good idea. A guideline is just that, a guideline. It's not a policy. Caden ^cool 22:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What you have here is a largely unsourced list and the amount of encylopedic prose present in the article (which is largely unsourced) would barely make a substantial lead for such a list. In short there is essentially nothing to split out: if you split out the list then most of the prose would need to be copied over anyway, rendering a split pointless. What would be left would not be worth keeping. In short, the article is not substantial enough to be worth splitting; it is impossible to get two articles out of the present material. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Swpb:, To editor Mad Hatter:, let's expand the section and add more so then we can split it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's"? You can do whatever expanding you want. —swpb^T 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Swpb: One person can't to it alone. As an editor who is involved with the article, you also should participate.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have some very odd ideas about how this volunteer project works. I don't care one bit about "spy-fi" beyond making sure that it follows the guidelines. I'm not obligated to do anything, and I'm certainly not inclined to work with you in any way. I'll work on what I choose to work on, and that will not include generating content for you. —swpb^T 19:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Swpb: It was a gesture to work together, you don't need to make remarks like that. I removed them and don't make remarks like that again WP:CIVIL--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to remove another editor's remarks, only your own. It's not a gesture when you use the words "you should". There is absolutely nothing that I "should" help you with, and nothing that I will help you with. Now stop pinging me. —swpb^T 19:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remove remarks if they violate Wiki policy, which I also care about. I said should, not have to, so don't try to start a flame war here. And because you whined so much about the split because of the split, it's only fair that I suggested you should.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't care about policy. If you did, you wouldn't constantly screw it up. —swpb^T 20:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Swpb:LOLz if I "screwed it up", then imagine what you've done. Since you have no input to offer instead of always complaining, it's better off without you. Now please, stop trolling.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Science Alert

Science alert

URL of Channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQOGmSdGGA74qvB2JFrrnUA

Science alert is a YouTube Channel based on technology where you will find all the videos in Hindi/Urdu about === Technology ===

Why this Channel is In Hindi/Urdu?

This channel is made in Hindi/Urdu Because Pakistani and Indian technology Lover have no Obstruct of Language.

This is a technical Channel in Hindi/Urdu Click on the link to Visit; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQOGmSdGGA74qvB2JFrrnUA

Founder

Ahmad Khattak (Pakistani)

Excessive examples

I've gone through the list of examples, disambiguated some. When I found one which had neither: (1) a source saying they belong to the subgenre, or (2) any mention of Spy-Fi in their parent article, I added a citation-needed tag or deleted the entry. (The page history is always there if someone wishes to restore.)

Even being sourced, though, doesn't mean they're the most notable and exemplary of the genre. The article would probably be better with a few notable examples and write-up of why they are notable. Wikipedia has a three-genre guideline, that a work should be noted as belonging to the three most-associated genres only, so a film or series that is too broad may not be strongly associated with this very specific subgenre. For example, Undercover Brother has all the elements of Spy-Fi (spying, high-tech gadgetry, a nefarious enemy and attempt to control the world), but it's more associated with other genres. This seems to be the case with comedies, the strongest exception being Austin Powers. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is too broad as an action-adventure-sci-fi-superhero-drama. Likewise, not every "stealth" or "spy" video game is Spy-Fi. No One Lives Forever may be the only one that belongs on the list.

While I've been going through these, it seems to me that the term is very much dated to the 1960s and has since fallen out of use. It might not be bad for the article to reflect this. And, of course, if the genre is dated then that can help keep some of the inappropriate examples off the list. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2020

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: Not moved. No consensus. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spy-Fi (subgenre) → Spy-Fi – A disambiguation appears unnecessary here. The vast majority of sources refer to "Spy-Fi" as spy fiction + science fiction, such as The Incredible World of Spy-fi and The Science of James Bond as well as Spy Television. Spy-fi should simply be redirected there as well. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. "Spy-Fi" historically refers to spy fiction, and no evidence has been put forward to suggest the "vast majority" of sources refer to "spy-fi" as the crossover genre of spy fiction and science fiction. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does this comment prove that sources do not use spy-fi to describe spy science fiction. I would be interested in seeing your proof that I am incorrect. In any case, it is exceedingly likely that modern searchers will be looking for the spy+science fiction genre._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said that sources don't use the term to describe spy science fiction. You are arguing that spy science fiction is the primary topic, and I would like to see some evidence of that. When I type the term into Google Books for instance (which provides a better overview of established long-term usage) the first page is predominantly concerned with traditional spy fiction, not spy science fiction. That suggests to me the more traditional topic of spy fiction is actually the primary topic for "spy fi". Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.