Talk:Hunter-killer

(Subs)
Hunter-killer submarines are denoted SSK by the United States Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epopt (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 July 2005

Removing Al-Khalid tank reference from "Teams"
An Al-Khalid by itself isn't a "team," and "The Pakistani Al-Khalid or the MBT 2000 carries this ability as well." doesn't make much sense in this context. I think the original intent was that the Al-Khalid could take fire missions from whatever BMP-derivatives Pakistan uses, but that could be said of any MBT in radio communication with an IFV/APC. I don't know if IFV/Al-Khalid teams are doctrinal like M2/M1 teams are or F-4G/F-16C teams were, and at any rate, no 'team' is suggested. --The Centipede 03:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rework
The accompanying main-namespace page starts out, as a good article should, with a one-sentence dictdef. It follows it with a compound sentence: a simple-sentence usage note, and a mention of one example of that usage. Then the lead section ends. In fact, unlike in a good article, the topic specified is not a thing, but, explicitly, a term; sadly, as a term it is not encyclopedic, so the other material is worthless for an encyclopedia. And the lack of coherence of the rest of the page clarifies that The page is IMO not worthy of deletion. But its content cannot remain as a single page. I see two possibly stub-worthy 'graphs, and the one which i consider most likely to survive deletion will get the history of the existing page. (The other will get a lk to that history, for the sake of GFDL compliance.) The rest of the content will probably be discarded or end up as entries on lists, whose deletion processes, if any, i intend to ignore. --Jerzy•t 05:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * except as a term, there is no topic, and the remaining sections are all either
 * further dictdefs, lists of usages, or single items for such a list, or article stubs on different topics related to various things called hunter-killers.

Rework details
The entry, under the former section "Teams", reading
 * * one or more antisubmarine aircraft carriers and a number of escort vessels whose primary mission is to detect and destroy submarines

is simply not an example of a hunter component teamed with a killer one; it's just a discussion of one aspect of what i think is called a carrier battle group, which includes vessels that each do both. What was in the section "In music" is now covered in corresponding entries on the Dab Hunter-killer, or of course in the articles they link to. What was in the section "Teams", but not mentioned above, is covered at List of types of hunter-killer team What was in the section "In fiction" is covered at List of fictional "hunter-killer" references  The "See also" is discarded: it merely lk'd to Anti-satellite weapon which makes no mention of any sense of the term. The only compliant link in the HatNote

is subsumed into the Dab; the specific lk to the MQ-9 Reaper used as an example in the lead is obviated by the general one unmanned combat air vehicle from the Aircraft section. . I could not find an article or section suitable for a Dab entry replacing the clueless section "Submarines" (which seems confused about how "hunter-killer" can imply division of labor when placed before "team" yet the opposite as a noun or before nouns other than team); i created the rd lk hunter-killer submarine accompanied by a lame but perhaps barely acceptable blue link to make a classic red/blue-pair entry. Despite my suspicion of adding graphics to lists, i moved the dramatically illustrative sniper-team photo to the above mentioned team list, and adapter its former caption as an additional bullet point. The "Armoured fighting vehicles" secn's 1st 'graph is the h-k-sight material, the substantial core that IMO deserves to carry the edit history with it, and remains verbatim. Its other graph is move to its own (perhaps deletable) stub, Hunter-killer armored-vehicle team; i've changed the spelling since the vehicles cited are American. I retain on this talk page that 'graph's final sentence:
 * It is an old but faithful battle plan that goes back as far as there has been organised warfare, and is highly effective.

That could be the germ of a real article on the concept of h-k teams, if fleshed out by discussion of how cavalry has differed over the millenia, the saddle, evolution of the stirrup, i know not what. But i am not going to be the one to create a one-sentence stub, that i can't carry further, on this subject. --Jerzy•t 12:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Redlink songs
The songs in question are not singles, they are simply tracks on the albums. There will never be enough information to EVER create a page for them. I understand the red link lets people know we have no specific information on the song, I can see your point (but I don't fully agree) that we are wasting peoples time linking to the album page, perhaps it would be more appropriate to link to the artists page? It may give people an idea on why said band would write a song like that. I also feel the information would look better if it was listed as it was previously, aren't red links supposed to let us know what pages need creating, not let us know we won't have enough information on certain things? Here is one of countless examples where songs are listed in this format: Change of Heart. Freikorp (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Specialist unit in the RTS gamee
Specialist unit f Arctiic (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, accidentally published from my mobile. I meant to say {Specialized Hydralisk (Zerg) unit in the RTS game "Star Craft: Brood Wars"} Arctiic (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)