Is there a reason to have both a [history] tag and a [food-history] tag?

Question

These tags are not broadly used - though this is not exactly unexpected, as we tend to focus on applied cooking than on cooking history.

food-history has 14 questions and has a tag wiki excerpt

Questions pertaining to current culinary practices and foods--how did we get where we are today?

history has 31 questions and no tag wiki.

Can we combine these into one? I don't have a particular care about which is which but I don't really see why we have two.

If the concern of food-history is that it might relate to foodstuffs only (despite the excerpt), I would recommend that "food" is redundant as this is a site about cooking, so perhaps history should win out. Alternately, we could replace them both with something more specific than "history" but broader than "food-history" like culinary-history.

Answer 1

After posting the answer below, I waited a while heard no objections, and merged into history.

---

I don't really see any value in trying to subdivide history. The line between "culinary practices" and "foods" is not at all a clear one, so there's no reason to expect people would intuitively split into culinary-history and food-history or anything similar.

I also don't see any need to clarify history. It pretty clearly means "history of things that are on topic on the site", which is pretty much just culinary things.