Jump to content

Talk:Spy-fi (subgenre)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Spy-Fi (subgenre))

Include anime

[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 09:47, 24 March 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Techno thrillers

[edit]

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

[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:37, 21 September 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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. —swpbT 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. —swpbT 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. —swpbT 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. —swpbT 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. —swpbT 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. —swpbT 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

[edit]

Science alert

[edit]

URL of Channel

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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

[edit]