Talk:media history

media history
Sum of parts? ---&gt; Tooironic 01:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * keep WT:CFI: “Terms” to be broadly interpreted. Academic discipline. --Chris Boston 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really a reason. Educational institutions make up their own course titles, I did one called Love, Laughter and Chivalry (no joke) but I wouldn't consider it dictionary material. Or how about history of art or art history. I'm thinking delete, though the entry gives two definitions and I'm not sure that both are SoP. --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article on art history. Helpful: spelling (compare warship or art-historical) and translations. --Light Yagami 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: SoP would be: "medium history" (singular like art). You will not find the name of your course in any dictionary, like Swedish-English Dictionary: mediehistoria => media history. --Light Yagami 16:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That this term is in Wikipedia or in a random bilingual dictionary does not make it includible as per Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion. In what way does "media history" not mean "the history of media"? ---&gt; Tooironic 01:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because, even if it's a course, the course is just the history of media, so it can be trivially deduced. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So you think media history is the history of "the middle layer of the wall of a blood vessel" (wiktionary). And the plural is written "mediae history"? Good to know --Light Yagami 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're just showing your ignorance of policy and applicability of rules. A "red car" doesn't have red wing mirrors and red headlights, and it's the colour red, not red with rust, but we still don't have an entry. Equinox ◑ 21:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WT:CFI? I don't know a university offering a B.A. in "red cars studies", but I know a Centre for Media History (Macquarie University) and journals like Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis. --Light Yagami 22:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have my sympathies! Equinox ◑ 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per other people's solid arguments. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, per what Mg and Equinox said. Yes, a course 'should' be called medium history, since media is plural, but media is used as a non-count noun everywhere, so you get media history (like art history: art is another such noun). (I've now added stuff about countability to [[media]].) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In contrast to media history, make history, missing at this writing and until someone add it, is an entry-worthy idiom. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the red car example. "Red car" is comparable with "American media history" (Ramsey Library Research Guides). @Msh210: "It 'should' be called ..." is a strong argument for keep. --Chris Boston 21:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But the should was in scare quotes because it only should be called that according to the Rules of Grammar™, and not according to actual usage on the street, which is what I referred to in the next part of my sentence above. Media history is one of innumerable examples of such 'ungrammatical' usage, which is accounted for at [[media]], and its 'ungrammaticality' is thus no reason to keep it. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be absurd to keep this one; if we did we would have to include political history, economic history, labor history, legal history, social history, religious history, military history, diplomatic history, African-American history, intellectual history, cultural history, history of marriage, history of boxing, history of vaudeville, and so on and so forth (and, yes, they all have Wikipedia pages). ---&gt; Tooironic 22:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Lean delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * delete. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)