Talk:Hardcore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archives

*Archive 1 2004 - 2007

[edit] Hardcore Cadre

A disambiguation page is not an article, nor is it a dictionary page. It is a page for disambiguating Wikipedia articles. If there's no article for the term, and no article to link to that discusses the term, then it doesn't belong on the dab page. If you think the subject deserves its own article, then start it on its own page. But in this case, it still wouldn't belong on this dab page, because it is not something known as (or that might be known as) simply hardcore. --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The section was modified to be a general application of the term wikt:Hardcore, but in any event, it's a dictionary definition, which is what we do not include per WP:DAB (here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we add a brief dict def intro line? Some thing like "Hardcore refers to anything intense or explicit. The term is also used to describe a person or group strongly committed to an ideology, cause, or activity." --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That does not appear to be the accepted practice. Refer to this and other relevant parts of the MoS. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the EU uses the term to refer to a core group of countries is not a dictionary definition and is encyclopedic and sourced. There are countless precedents of including such information. --neonwhite user page talk 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: Dab pages are are not articles. Citations and external links in general are not used on dab pages. And further, the European Union article nowhere mentions the term Hardcore, so linking to is not helpful. You say there are precedents for this kind of entry--well, yes, there are many incorrect disambiguation pages out there, and I'm sure you could find a precedent for anything. But it's still wrong.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And NW, please watch the 3RR. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect, all main pages on wikipedia are articles and references are frequently used on many of these pages, they are articles like any other and need sourcing. The EU site clearly mentions the term. It is a possible use of the word 'hardcore', it is not a dictionary definition and there is no reason why it should not be included in this page. It is plainly a ridiculous POV to suggest that the term is only used in music, pornography and wrestling and ignore everything else. Your edits do not improve the encyclopedia, as ever edit should, but delete valuable information. WP:3RR does not apply to different edits. Please provide a proper reason why this use of the term should not be include or it will be considered a disruptive edit. --neonwhite user page talk 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages: "Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace." From the guidelines for individual entries: "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them as comments or on a talk page." Because dab pages disambiguate only Wikipedia articles, they don't require citations: The sourcing should be done in the article. As far as I can tell, the term "hardcore" does not appear in the article European Union, so that usage should not be on the dab page. And, to repeat Cheeser1's point, even if it were used in the article, the meaning is merely an extension of the dictionary definition. And to repeat my own point, the term Hardcore Cadre wouldn't belong here because it's not ambiguous--that is, it is not something known as just hardcore and likely to be confused with other uses of the word. --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I could be a "hardcore gamer." Or I could be a "hardcore conservative." It's just the dictionary use of the term "hardcore." --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is utterly incorrect, this is a term that refers to a well documented economic proposal concering the countries in the EU, it is in no way a dictionary defintion you will not find it in any dictionary. Everything on the page is an extension of the dictionary definition so that is a ludicrous point. MOS:DAB is merely a guideline it is not set in stone and in practice it is not generally followed in common practice. The sources clearly states "Hard core" refers to a limited group of countries able and willing to develop 'closer cooperation'. The European Union has many articles and branches and if it doesnt appear in one then it will soon. I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the term Hardcore Cadre, (i removed it) but the wide political usage of the term clearly belongs here. --neonwhite user page talk 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. If the particular political meaning of hardcore is a legitimate, noteworthy use of the term, then it should be treated in a separate article--Hardcore (politics), or something like--or, alternatively, added to an existing relevant article. Then it could have an entry on the dab page. But placing an entry on the dab page when there is no WP article to link to is not an acceptable substitute for the information being in an actual article. Dab pages disambiguate articles; they are not catchalls for stuff that isn't yet somewhere else. And please don't point out again that there are dab pages that don't adhere to this standard. I've already granted that there are many poorly maintained dab pages, just as there are many poorly maintained articles that, say, lack citations, which would not be valid evidence that I should be allowed to add unsourced material to an article if that material is challenged. --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're also still missing the fact that you're plucking the term out of a glossary, which is more or less the same as pulling it out of the dictionary. The source is not, as far as I can tell, a third-party source, and appears to be intended to delineate particular terminology constructed specifically for treaties among European nations. WP:NEOLOGISM? WP:DICT? WP:V? Is this a nonce word? I can't find any use of this term elsewhere, although I'd admit is not easy to look. Furthermore, the other terms on this page are not simply dictionary definitions, as you state, or they wouldn't have Wikipedia articles (at least not for long) and they wouldn't be on this disambiguation page. I have no idea where that claim came from, but it's absurd. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The eu glossary contains common terms used by the european union, it's not the same as a dictionary, this term is mentioned in many sources [1][2][3][4]

it refers paricularly to a proposed ecomonic policy that is frequently referred to as the 'european hard core' since it's initial proposal which i believe was around 1995, much has been written about it so i dont think it can be a neologism, the word isn't being used as an adjective. I'm trying to find if anything is written about it in the various EU articles on wikipedia. I'd be suprised if it wasn't considering it can be well sourced. If it isn't i may consider putting in the time and creating an article from the sources. I did not state they were dictionary definitions, i said they were all extensions of dictionary definitions which they clearly are. In all cases the word hardcore was originally used as an adjective due to it's appropriate dictionary defintion. It wasnt applied randomly or made up. There are many disamb. pages that only have indirect links to related articles, such as products linking to the company that manufactured them. Songs with only a link only to artists or albums. So it doesnt look like common practice to have only entries that have an article. --neonwhite user page talk 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you are seeming deliberately obtuse. I never said that the topic must have a separate article. I have repeatedly said that it is acceptable to link to an article in which the topic being disambiguated is named and/or discussed. As for the three adjectival uses already on the page--music, pornography, and wrestling--I would point that in all three cases (particularly the first two--the third is more debatable) the particular topic is, in context, often referred to as simply hardcore--that is, the adjective becomes the name (an adjectival noun). Are there examples of a similar use of hardcore by itself in a political context? --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. It is reasonable to imagine someone looking up the term for more info on the political/econmonical usage. --neonwhite user page talk 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't have any info on this political/economic usage. Which means it doesn't belong on the disambig page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] literature

Sorry if this is a weird question, but are comic books considered "literature"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In its most general sense literature includes all written material, so it makes a good catch-all category for fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, comics, graphic novels, and so on when there are only one or two examples of each on a dab page. But since there are no other written works on this particular dab page, the category could be renamed Comics. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)