Talk:Hook-up

I don't see why this article was deleted or why it shouldn't act as a disambiguation, pointing to either hookup or one night stand or even casual sex. While the content may be questionable, the cultural connotation seems too important to simply delete the article or relegate it to a wiktionary entry. Nsfmc 20:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged this and Hook up, but I've got to say that I have a hard time seeing why this is an encyclopedia entry. Maybe I just can't see the potential Feature Article lurking within. :) --Bookandcoffee 17:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly i don't see the featured article either, wasn't {http://www.urbandictionary.com] meant for stuff like this? Maybe in the future we'll have a wikislang or the like, but not today.

I suggest we dump it!--Requiem18th 03:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have a dictionary of slang (attested slang, that is). It's Wiktionary. Uncle G 15:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think 'tionary holds slang and even if it does is there any QA involved? Do you think this deserves to be included in 'tionary? --Requiem18th 11:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course Wiktionary takes slang. I just told you that it did. Most dictionaries take slang. Wiktionary has no concept of a word's "quality". That violates the Neutral Point of View policy. Wiktionary's criterion for inclusion is attestation. Uncle G 12:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that this is a valuable topic. However, it should probably be merged with another topic---possibly dating, free love, or casual sex. Nonetheless, the hook-up phenomenon is a unique manifestation of the one night stand, and is a valid topic for sociological study.

I think you should have the definition of hook-up as:

  "recieved a good or service as a favor"

and the reason why is that not everyone knows what does that mean. Take for example, me, i work in the student store at school and they come and tell me "hey hook me up" and i didn't know what it mean, so i come here where you usually can find anything but this one is not here. People who speak english as a second language don't know all the words and they don;t know the slangs either so i think at leas that definition should be here.--CesarCossio 01:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As a non-native english speaker, I use wikipedia to look up things like this. It might not be representing the more glorious sides of society, but as a term it's probably much more important that the majority of terms used in wikipedia.--Alf 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sexualization of phrases as time passes is interesting to many people who see it as a sign of cultural change during their lifetime. Where I live (northeast US), in the late 70s, to "hook up" meant to meet in person and nothing more. It was used for business appointments, social appointments, etc. By the late 80s, the language was changing and by the late 90s, it had changed. See http://forum.wordreference.com/archive/index.php?t-2310.html for a discussion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hook-up for the deletion record. The previous article here was probably just poor. If someone created a new article about this phrase with verifiable citations, I'm sure it would stay in Wikipedia. Flying Jazz 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A solution

Based on the above discussion, I propose a solution. Please replace the content of the article with the following:

#REDIRECT [[Dating]]

--Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Ashibaka tock 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my fault. It's now a double redirect; I should have asked for it to go to Courtship instead. But now that I think about it, the article might be better as a disambiguation page, which I'm developing on Hook-up/temp. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected it (so anyone can make needed corrections). I also moved that temp dab page in there.--Commander Keane 09:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source

With regards to "hooking up"..... Book on women's sex 'hookups' draws fire Mathmo ^Talk 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]