Talk:Essay: Head Hunting


I kind of feel that this might be a little pointless as an article. The concept of headhunting is far from unique to BattleTech. It in fact has been a fairly standard military practice for thousands of years. This article does not really reflect that, nor does it really do anything else useful in my opinion.--Dmon (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

I agree. Headhunting isn't something that is specific to BattleTech (the article even says as much), and the topic as such doesn't, imho, warrant an article here, as per Policy:Notability. Or did I miss something? Frabby (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
I've tried to give some battletech flavor to this article, can you review. Not sure though it is enough to save it.--Pserratv (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Still not feeling it with this article, virtually every scrap of BT relevant information could be better served as part of a character article or the start of a battle article.--Dmon (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
As I was saying, this was me trying to make a page that by definition doesn't look right.--Pserratv (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
I disagree completely. This should probably be considered an (albeit extremely rare) BattleMech role, and kept as part of that. Also, as a user who didn't know much about Head Hunting in BattleTech, it is a very useful article that doesn't require one to know the steps the development of this role took beforehand. --Windchild (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2020 (EST)
Windchild, while I do value your opinion, I disagree with the argument you put forth. The term "Roles" for BattleMechs has a specific rules background; you cannot simply declare a given purpose a "role" in that sense. And beyond that rules definition of roles, the word - and by extension, this article - is just an opinion, and not a relevant fact of the BattleTech universe. Frabby (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2020 (EST)
I support deletion. This is opinion, not established fact.--Cache (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2020 (EST)
I disagree. Head hunting is mentioned in fluff and lore. Not everything that "doesn't have rules" doesn't have a place on BT. If it's for that most planets, dynaties, characters etc. would have to be deleted since thwey don't have specific rules attached.-- 20:11, 2 October 2020 (EDT)
I don't think that's the right way to characterize the issue here. The way I see it, there are two core problems. First, as noted, the article is not specific to BattleTech. Sure, head hunting is mentioned in the lore, but so are martial arts and stock corporations, and we don't have articles about those. Second, it's about a concept, rather than a specific entity, which makes it unlike nearly every other article I can think of. Planets, dynasties, characters, battles, etc., are all objects, groups, events, and so forth, whose articles consist of verifiable facts. A concept like head hunting is less specific, less verifiable, and more prone to interpretation and the injection of unverifiable opinion.
I support deletion, but I'd also like to suggest the alternative approach of moving the article to the Essay namespace. The issues I see here are ameliorated if the entry is an essay. Tosta Dojen (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (EDT)
I think Tosta Dojen has a great compromise solution. I also support moving it to the Essay namespace. The article has had a lot of academic research put into it and it does provide links to many other areas of interest. How do others feel about this as a solution?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:05, 9 May 2021 (EDT)
Ok, the compromise has been unchallenged for almost 8 months, and spotlighted on the Chatterweb for 3 weeks. I'm moving to Essays now.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:42, 30 May 2021 (EDT)