Talk:Sexed up

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] From VfD

  • Wiktionary. Regardless of how "useful" the article is, it doesn't belong here. --Badharlick 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Has a vfd tag, but was not listed here until now.) The current content sucks, but it is a common term, and could become a useful article--how/when/where it originated would be interesting; also a reference to the phrase "sex sells". If nothing else, it could redirect to Hyperbole, with appropriate reference added to that article. Niteowlneils 23:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with above suggestions.
  • It was a key phrase in the Hutton Inquiry which is why the content is why it is. Please add/amend. Secretlondon 23:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neutral. IMO this is not a particularly useful contribution and never likely to be, but nor is there any persuasive case for deletion. Human knowledge? Borderline. A poor choice of article name at best. The material could perhaps be NPOVed and moved to an article on journalistic bias or similar by someone interested in the topic, with a redirect. Andrewa 23:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This article definitely needs changing. It is becoming sexed up itself!
    • I've removed the POV content, and expanded it. Could still use some work, but is an example of what it could become. Niteowlneils 23:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment : Neutral. As the original author I agree that it wasn't the most informative first entry I could've made to this place. The example was meant to be sexed up as a self reference, however I realised I should've expilicitly stated this and have tried to ammend it appropriately. Bad newbieness, sorry. easilyremembered 23:47 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but needs a bit more. Dysprosia 04:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common term. --Johnleemk 07:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Common term but words, phrases and their use flow better in Wiktionary than they can here. Rossami 14:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Encyclopedia is about facts, not about words however idiomatic or neologismic they could be. Do you really want all these "beefed up", "screwed up", "dressed up" and hundreds of other ups here? Mikkalai 18:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. I would vote to delete all the ones you cite. However, none of them have been used as commonly or specifically by the news media for such a controversial, and specific news item. Niteowlneils 18:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] This illustrates the danger

....................................... of using undefined terms. The contributor says make "more attractive" the dictionary says " make it seem more significant, exciting or interesting than it originally was" : something quite different. As an aging brit, I regard it as equivalent to " tarting up " and many people might think of "fuck up" (when used to mean "spoil" ). Exaggerate seems pretty close to Andrew Gilligan's probable intention. MORAL :- BE EXPLICIT and do not try to show off or to be too clever.

77.97.161.230 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)mikeL