Talk:Spy-fi (subgenre)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Techno thrillers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  There seems to be a problem on the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. —swpbT 18:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

text: 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.  —swpbT 13:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: "Let's"? You can do whatever expanding you want. —swpbT 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

text: 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. —swpbT 19:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

text: 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. —swpbT 19:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, you don't care about policy. If you did, you wouldn't constantly screw it up. —swpbT 20:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Support split 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Excessive examples