This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Feel free to shorten the artists, events and labels list. But do not blatantly delete it (that includes the exernal links and bottom section!)
This was a quick knock up but gives a rough idea. It needs some work and more details. It should tone about happy hardcore being mocked - needs a NPOV - or at least explain (specifically relates to the late 1990s stuff) - and use various cites etc. Thanks -- Revolt 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
What an awful article. Endless lists of DJs, MCs, labels and events....most of which are no-name or so minor that it's obvious that someone added them to big themselves up a bit. I trimmed out a lot of the shit, but that whole section should be removed really....especially because almost every name listed didn't have a linked page anyway.
Josh, you are signed to one of the big UK Hardcore labels, you deserve to be on the list IMO. 81.104.227.11 ( talk) 10:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
warning about too long an intro can be removed?
Sounds like an advert for a very poor music genre. An absolute disgrace. Very piss poor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.247.210 ( talk) 11:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
its three lines O.o
it is abit pants, theres alot more that could be said and the list takes up half the page. maybe the list could be a seporate article with a link at the bottom to it? also much more should be written about the history of uk hardcore and another section should explain the extent of uk hardcore today. practically the whole thing needs to be re-written as i think its too brief and practically ignores the 21 century revival and the fact than uk hardcore was reinvented after the so called "death of hardcore" and so on. does anyone agree? 77.99.147.90 ( talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)crazy dave
just my 2pence worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.182.92 ( talk) 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone with specific knowledge on the matter (not me, unfortunately) should expand on the connection a bit more, otherwise I propose that the relevant information from this article be merged into the "Happy hardcore" article as a subsection. (They're not quite parent/child or sibling genres, but they're not the same thing, either.) -- Zarggg ( talk) 14:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This article reads more like a fan page than an encyclopedia article. Unsourced statements, events, DJs, general opinions and unencyclopedic language ("Nowadays"? really?). Not NPOV, speculates that UK Hardcore is inevitably going to increase in popularity when there is no evidence of this. There has been a citation tag on this article since March 2007. I'm going to go ahead and be bold and remove the unencyclopedic content. 12.220.128.10 ( talk) 22:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Feel free to shorten the artists, events and labels list. But do not blatantly delete it (that includes the exernal links and bottom section!)
This was a quick knock up but gives a rough idea. It needs some work and more details. It should tone about happy hardcore being mocked - needs a NPOV - or at least explain (specifically relates to the late 1990s stuff) - and use various cites etc. Thanks -- Revolt 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
What an awful article. Endless lists of DJs, MCs, labels and events....most of which are no-name or so minor that it's obvious that someone added them to big themselves up a bit. I trimmed out a lot of the shit, but that whole section should be removed really....especially because almost every name listed didn't have a linked page anyway.
Josh, you are signed to one of the big UK Hardcore labels, you deserve to be on the list IMO. 81.104.227.11 ( talk) 10:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
warning about too long an intro can be removed?
Sounds like an advert for a very poor music genre. An absolute disgrace. Very piss poor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.247.210 ( talk) 11:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
its three lines O.o
it is abit pants, theres alot more that could be said and the list takes up half the page. maybe the list could be a seporate article with a link at the bottom to it? also much more should be written about the history of uk hardcore and another section should explain the extent of uk hardcore today. practically the whole thing needs to be re-written as i think its too brief and practically ignores the 21 century revival and the fact than uk hardcore was reinvented after the so called "death of hardcore" and so on. does anyone agree? 77.99.147.90 ( talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)crazy dave
just my 2pence worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.182.92 ( talk) 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone with specific knowledge on the matter (not me, unfortunately) should expand on the connection a bit more, otherwise I propose that the relevant information from this article be merged into the "Happy hardcore" article as a subsection. (They're not quite parent/child or sibling genres, but they're not the same thing, either.) -- Zarggg ( talk) 14:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This article reads more like a fan page than an encyclopedia article. Unsourced statements, events, DJs, general opinions and unencyclopedic language ("Nowadays"? really?). Not NPOV, speculates that UK Hardcore is inevitably going to increase in popularity when there is no evidence of this. There has been a citation tag on this article since March 2007. I'm going to go ahead and be bold and remove the unencyclopedic content. 12.220.128.10 ( talk) 22:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)