Talk:local history

Deletion debate
History that is local in its subject. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Local history does not normally include microhistory or Alltagsgeschichte, although these are local in subject. I also find the compound "local historian" to be of interest -- it chunks very differently from "local teacher" or "local dentist".  The fact that the boundaries of the field have been the subject of periodic debate for decades is also of interest. Keep, perhaps sharpen definition (though it looks pretty good from here).  -- Visviva 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not idiomatic or a set phrase (to me) so delete . Mglovesfun (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not every possible combination of senses of red and senses of car is actually attestable. Should be have an entry for red car that contains only those that are? "Red team" and "red car" use different senses of red. Should be have one or both for that reason?
 * Also would an official (ie, prescribed) definition of "local history" from, say, a "Universal Society of Local Historians" merit an entry if attestable? How would we warrant that a given citation was of the official definition? DCDuring TALK 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

redcar/tm-'dbe alowd,y[c furtherabuv]2,y,tho praps rathe i/wp-extnsn-史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. No, of course not. 2. No, of course it wouldn't.  But nobody is suggesting either of these things, so I'm not sure why you bring them up.
 * "Local" seems to have only one applicable definition: "From or in a nearby location." Obviously we are missing a sense or three.  But I don't see how any plausible sense of local would reflect the fact that a) local history is normally considered to exclude microhistorical and ethnographic studies of a locality's history, even though these are both local and historic, or b) that someone could say in all seriousness that "proper local history is not really local history at all."  -- Visviva 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the current definition doesn't refer to the history of a locality, but a sort of study, a body of work. So providing that is correct, I'd say keep. But only if there's some sort of credible source. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

praps dc isbrainwashd i/schools[imjust tryin2understnd why s/he chaoticly nomnts like that,oris itjust bordm+silynes?];but neva stepd outside ntried2thorely understand sth??[uwont getv.far w/ur aproach..--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I blame not just my schools, but also my ancestors, food, medication, friends, relatives, employers, coworkers, friends, partners, acquaintances, correspondents, government, and society and environment in general for all their shortcomings as manifest in me. In the great Wiki in the Sky you can always put in an RfD on me. Please refrain from out-of-process deletion or even editing.
 * I nominate what I come across in the course of sowing chaos throughout wiktionary, for example, in Category:English phrases, Category:English interjections, and Category:English proverbs, also uncategorized entries, and items with bad structure, missing inflection lines, bad headers. Also entries that haven't been materially changed since being imported from Webster 1913. Should I presort them before putting them in to RfD or RfV? Is it my job to perfect each entry I find with shortcomings?
 * If someone would like to make a good entry out of this entry by indicating in what context the specialized meaning applies and attesting the elements of the definition or referencing the definition, preferably from more than one source, I'd be more than happy. Otherwise, .... DCDuring TALK 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly; I nominate entries based on what they contain . If there's a specialized context or another meaning I don't know about, I can't predict that the entry will be improved in the future. Often, rfding a poor entry either leads to deletion, or a good rewrite. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

“All white horses,” and all that. Sorry that I don't know what microhistory and Alltagsgeschichte are, but even if other histories are local in character, that doesn't mean that local history isn't simply “history that is local.” Also, let's please not mix up prescribed technical definitions—perhaps there is a sense of local history which should be marked with —and everyday terms that everyone knows the meaning of, like local history. —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 02:40 z 


 * Feel free to edit the entry, in a way that you feel would resolve these concerns. As you may have noticed, this is an RFD; the only point at issue is whether the term is always and everywhere the sum of its parts.  If it is, it doesn't belong in the dictionary, because no one will ever need to look it up.  On the other hand, if it is only sometimes the sum of its parts, then it can stay and be improved.  But before anyone is going to want to spend time improving the entry, it has to not be deleted.
 * We haven't satisfactorily dealt with the issue of how to deal with words that are SOP in common use but have an occasional non-compositional meaning. Ruakh proposed a good solution a while back, IIRC... I'll see if I can dig it up.  But in any event, I'm not convinced that applies here; I have a hard time imagining that anyone would consider, say, an ethnographic study of a locality over time to qualify as "local history".  I wouldn't expect to find, say, Shinohata in the local history section of a library; even a Japanese library. -- Visviva 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if someone added a specialist definition, then the entry doesn't get deleted (and then perhaps the common sense should be added, no?). I don't know anything about the use of local history by historians, so I could only speculate. —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 04:50 z 
 * We always have the citation space available for someone who wants to provide quotations that would support a non-SoP sense. I sympathize with the need to give a home for work that might lead to a real entry. Is it more reasonable to have an entry like this RfV'd first? The issue seems largely the same in either case. The citation effort may be "wasted". I have always thought that talk was cheaper than citation effort, so that a challenge on idiomaticity grounds would lead to less wasted effort.
 * It seems to me especially important to have citations to support an entry that the lexicographic authorities at other dictionaries don't find worth having an entry for. We seem to give a great deal of credence to such authority in many other areas.
 * Delete this and improve the related sense of history, because it can be combined with any plausible adjective. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Very marginal fail per this debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)