Talk:Nostalgia

message: Shouldn't this page mention something about the modern definition of nostalgia- the longing for the "good old days", and often the conviction that everything was better back then? I see only passing reference to this definition. --Ntg
: I wholly agree with this comment, but I don't reall know what to do about it.  Somewhat relatedly, I would like to point out that this page has one of the best "See Also" sections on Wikipedia. unless 13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i would like to work on this article more when i have more time.--Sp0 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: General Questions

message: Wow, I came to this page hoping for instances of nostalgia in art and literature, psychological explanations etc., and all there is is a brief description of it's history as a pseudo-disease in some parts of western Europe during the last couple hundred years.
Am I the only one that thinks this article needs to be beefed up HUGELY?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.74.130 (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, something should be done about this article. I found it strange upon visiting this article that it was in such a bad shape. I'll see if I can do something later to get this article on it's feet and more useful, because it's semi-useless the way it is now. --- Silenced Gamer 10: 56, October 22, 2007  —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I wish I knew more about the topic so I could update the page, I was surprised to see an article so lacking in information. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severely lacking 

message: I think that Rosy Retrospection should be added to the see also part, since they are similar. I would write something in the body, but I'm afraid of doing original research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection
                       -Joe23973  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.177.40 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: Yes there may be a better photo to illustrate Nostalgia, but please don't remove this one until you find one! Also, if you remove this photo (nostalgia item BHH front desk as bar) please remove the whole text section "Recalling Celebrity" which was entered at the same time as the photo. The photo is an illustration for the section. Are you familiar with The Beverly Hills Hotel? You might also consider not to deprive Wikipedia users the viewing of this very rare photo donated together with the rest of the Southerly Clubs collection (see my user page for link). Saw your user page & thought this revert might fit into your wishes there. Thx! EmilEikS (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there could be a better image - or additional images - here, but also that this image is a valuable asset to the current section next to it. What this article lacks the most is more about the common connotation of the subject, as used by a broaer public in the English-speaking world. It this meant to be an elitist text only for specialists, or can we try to turn it into a real world piece? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Removal

message: A new section on nostalgia in popular culture was removed now instead of being expanded. It is hard to understand why as the lack of anything on that obviously important factor seems to be a major flaw with this article. I think the little section should be restored and expanded. SoCoColl (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nostalgia in popular culture is widely known, less clinically, to include a general interest of many people in past eras and their personalities and events. It has then often effected fashions, decor and the arts.
this isn't in any obviuos way related to "popular culture" at all but more or less a dictionary definition of "nostalgia". If you have any content to add, you are certainly welcome, but I do not think we need empty sections just because they "should" be there. Thus, please do restore and expand it, but I see no point in the restoring without the expanding. --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I have tested your opinion and mine, neutrally, on a couple of readers, both of whom felt there was something sorely missing without the little section, at least a few lines about what's obviously needed for a well-rounded text. Hope you don't mind too much that I am restoring it, and let's hope someone will expand it soon. The article really limps without anything at all like that in there, even though I agree that the section now only briefly relates what's rather obvious. SoCoColl (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent move of this text to lead - thanx! SoCoColl (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture section removed 

message: Bear with me on this and please give it your consideration.  Words are used as tools to express the intent of the person who uses the words.  A single word can have many different meanings, depending on the intent of the person using the word.  One person might attach a different meaning to a word than does someone else.  That much should be easily recognizable, but which meaning is to be recognized as correct or invalid?  This is an opinion based on perspective and in the case of society agreeing on a definition, the definition is based on the collective perspective, i.e., what "most" people who use the common language would mean.  
So the primary definition of a word as recognized by the collective would be what the majority of people mean when they use the word.  But what of the other people who use the word in a way other than this?  Will their meaning be recognized by society?  If the meaning is so far off base from the common usage that only one or two people understand it, then it is usually ignored.  But if there is a significant number of people who use the word in a way other than the common usage, even if they do not constitute the majority, such a usage should be recognized and identified by society for the sake of understanding the various meanings behind the word's usage.  
With the above in mind, I move to have a secondary definition included for the word "nostalgia": "A feeling of appreciation for the past or something related to the past, often in an idealized form."  Whereas, the primary definition currently stated is "The term nostalgia describes a yearning for the past, often in idealized form."  A yearning and a feeling of appreciation are two fairly separate things.  I do not yearn for the past, I do not long for it, but I do have a feeling of appreciation with regards to aspects of it or things connected to it.  
— sloth_monkey 05:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloth monkey: I agree entirely with your linguistic analysis. There is always a tension between the central and outlying meanings. Innumerable examples can be found where the fringe meaning eclipsed the original, central one completely. I also agree that "nostalgia," as a concept, is moving more towards an appreciation of the past rather than a remembrance of things past. (One of these days I'll actually have to read Proust.) This could be a result of people having fewer concrete things to remember while at the same time having more pop culture things to tie memories to. For example: people who lived through the Great Depression and WWII have nostalgic attachments to the struggle for survival. Their children and grandchildren are nostalgic about movies about the Great Depression and WWII, which they saw in their youth. "Nostalgia" is becoming synonymous with collecting memorabilia, with dressing retro...Execreblete (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: As I found it: 
Nostalgic preferences, the belief that the past was better than the present, has been linked to biases in memory.
I've bolded the subject and verb (I've already changed the verb in the article to 'have'). 
It's not just the intervening phrase here messing up the ear. There's a tendency to hear the sentence with an implied preamble: 
The having of nostalgic preferences—a psychological posture that the past was better than the present—has been linked to biases in memory.
(Again with subject and main verb in bold.) So those are your choices. — MaxEnt 01:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tricky verb agreement 

message: I'm sorry, but that picture is completely ridiculous as an illustration of "nostalgia".  Rotary dial phones and manual typewriters are what I grew up with.  And we didn't have "home offices" in those days.  Just space up in the attic, or something. 73.81.116.164 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and  —RCraig09 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove photo of pre-computer home office 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :"rose tinted spectacles" and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#"rose tinted spectacles" until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 13:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ""rose tinted spectacles"" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Within "Improve mood", shouldn't "One way to improve mood is to effectively cope with problems that hinder one's happiness." be removed?  This sentence adds nothing to the article.  This is a general wellness statement.  
Additionally shouldn't the sections "Improve mood" and "Enhance positive self-regard" be merged?  They include similar ideas. 2601:404:C67F:D6C2:DCEE:338A:64B6:9F31 (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redudancy