Talk:postal history
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mglovesfun
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
History that's postal in its subject. Either encyclopedic, or unidiomatic. Seems to bolster the argument for deleting #local history, as that uses the same sense of history#Noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect agricultural history, ecclesiastical history and similar stuff would use the same sense of history too. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- delete --Hekaheka 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think in the case of #local history it is a question of the (unique?) sense of "local" rather than of "history", which just means "history" in both cases. There doesn't seem to be anything unusual about the meaning of either "postal", "history", or "postal history" here, so I can't immediately see any grounds for not delete-ing this one as nonidiomatic. -- Visviva 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Although if the 'pedia is accurate in describing this as a specific form of collecting, it might be keepable. Needs further research, as the pedia artice is somewhat incoherent. -- Visviva 13:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Postal History Society doesn't mention anything so specific, so I'm sticking with deletion. -- Visviva 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Definite keep for the second definition. It is widely used in philatelic circles to indicate postal items that can be studied and collected. There is no meaning of history that would indicate tangible items such as these, therefore it can not be some of parts. In reply to the previous comment about agricultural history, this would never mean tractors or other machinary. Postal history has this distinct meaning.--Dmol 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- So I've just deleted the first meaning for now. I don't think #2 is idiomatic either, it's more of a (by extension) thing. Anyone other than Dmol want to keep it? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um, yeah: me. How do you get "postal paraphernalia" from "postal" + "history"? I would never have guessed that meaning. (Note that the definition is written as if the deleted first definition still exists: it refers back to it.)—msh210℠ 19:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Have fixed the def to allow for the deletion of the first entry.--Dmol 07:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um, yeah: me. How do you get "postal paraphernalia" from "postal" + "history"? I would never have guessed that meaning. (Note that the definition is written as if the deleted first definition still exists: it refers back to it.)—msh210℠ 19:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- So I've just deleted the first meaning for now. I don't think #2 is idiomatic either, it's more of a (by extension) thing. Anyone other than Dmol want to keep it? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Definite keep for the second definition. It is widely used in philatelic circles to indicate postal items that can be studied and collected. There is no meaning of history that would indicate tangible items such as these, therefore it can not be some of parts. In reply to the previous comment about agricultural history, this would never mean tractors or other machinary. Postal history has this distinct meaning.--Dmol 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- 2 cites added, (1 book, 1 web). My computer is going down so can't tidy it up yet. Will come back.--Dmol 06:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Kept, noting that only the first definition was tagged. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)