Talk:history book

RFD discussion: September 2023–October 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

history book

SOP; compare chemistry book, sociology book, etc. There may be an idiomatic sense out there (compare “the history books” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman.) but this is not it. PUC – 18:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete as it stands, although there may be a possibility for a better entry about what future generations will see in "the history books" etc.: often it's just a metaphor for history. Equinox ◑ 18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I added a quote only yesterday, so there's something about "history books" that's idiomatic. You can't say it's plural only though. And @Equinox: I think you have butchered the def - it was better before. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete, SOP, man should know from his linguistics books. Actually one should know from primary school 😱 – does this mean “primary school” has an “idiomatic” sense of “primary education“? No. This is what Equinox means with “metaphor”. There are figurative senses we must not include. Somewhere the relations are too close and the margins are fuzzy, vagueness. Separate senses must be contoured. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep but improve the definition, and withal add a {{&lit}} sense. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There is for the history books, essentially for the book(s), but I don't think that should be handled at history book (singular), and generally less fixed metaphors involving history books are probably going to be sum-of-parts. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think the definition provided is wrong based on the citations provided. There are history textbooks for school (which the definition suggests) and then there are general-readership books on history. I don't think that when someone refers to a sports performance as entering the history books, they mean that it will be included in school textbooks. bd2412 T 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it could be treated as an antonym of ash heap of history / trash heap of history, and we could base our definition off of that: "A notional place where …"? PUC – 09:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That particular figurative sense only works in the plural. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving the entry to history books if necessary. PUC – 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can also find the singular, google books:"entered the history book", albeit mostly in low-quality self-published books and/or books by non-native speakers. I would delete the entry as it stands ("history book" just defined as a book about history), but "history books" defined as "a notional place...[etc]" as discussed above, with "history book" as the {{singular of}} that, seems more inclusible. - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep Purplebackpack89 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, Delete, because the whole thing could be replaced by "maths book = textbook on maths", "physics book = textbook on physics", etc. If it means something more then please let's actually see this in the definition. Mihia (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Although the term as currently defined indeed seems SOP, I think the idiomatic usage should be recorded. I think the proposal of -sche is the most sensible: add a proper definition (+quotes) to history books and change the definition at history book into {{singular of}} + {{&lit}}. Einstein2 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sense deleted, rewritten as {tl|singular of}} + {{&lit}}, with history books rewritten as a notional place. bd2412 T 18:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)