Talk:Lustrum (journal)

What counts as excessive detail?
WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide reads You can also mention particular papers that have attracted significant coverage in independent sources. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media or blogs, is not unexpected for papers and so falls short of this mark. The examples you removed all had review articles about those independent papers which is why I thought they were worth mentioning; an academic review dedicated to a paper is more than "a small number of quotations", should I add multiple reviews for each of those articles?

I also think it's clearer to see the list of editors versus just having it in prose. You're also removing things which I'm citing as information such as the foreword to the first volume or the forewords which introduce new editors/announce retirements. In general I think when a Wikipedia article can provide a primary source, in addition to the secondary source to contextualize and show relevance, it's useful to the reader. We have the secondary source talking about the 700-page article published over 12 years (please don't remove this, that's the DYK for this page which will appear in a few days), but it's also nice so have the citation to the paper itself to readers can verify for themself.

Umimmak (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * and you don't think it's of historic interest to see what the first volume had? There are multiple sources talking about the contents of the first issue; it gives a sense of what the journal's editors wanted it to be about from the very beginning and also that Mette wrote articles for the journal. I see that WP:JWG/NOT says not to include Index-like list of articles published in the journal, but that's very different from mentioning which prominent authors wrote articles for the initial volume and what subjects were included in a section about the journal's establishment. Umimmak (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I had more information about who wrote the article, but it got removed although there is still footnote [18] which shows Touloumakos wrote it. I’m not really sure there is a reason why it was published in Lustrum versus a book, it’s beyond what the source says, but I don’t think it’s really what happened, so I’m not sure the tag is needed? Umimmak (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed content, for posterity
I still think this removed content might be helpful for future editors and for readers (and still think some of this information could very well belong in the article) so here's a clear volume-by-volume explanation of who edited each volume:

", the editors of each volume and Jahrgang have been:


 * Vol. 1 (Jg. 1956) — Hans Joachim Mette & Andreas Thierfelder
 * Vol. 27 (Jg. 1985) — H. J. Mette & A. Thierfelder
 * Vol. 28–29 (Jg. 1986–87) — Hans Gärtner, H. J. Mette†, Hubert Petersmann, & A. Thierfelder†
 * Vol. 30 (Jg. 1988) — H. Gärtner & H. Petersmann
 * Vol. 40 (Jg. 1998) — H. Gärtner & H. Petersmann
 * Vol. 41 (Jg. 1999) — H. Gärtner & H. Petersmann†
 * Vol. 42 (Jg. 2000) — H. Gärtner & Michael Weißenberger
 * Vol. 52 (Jg. 2010) — H. Gärtner & M. Weißenberger
 * Vol. 53 (Jg. 2010) — Marcus Deufert, H. Gärtner, & M. Weißenberger
 * Vol. 54 (Jg. 2011) — M. Deufert & M. Weißenberger
 * Vol. 59 (Jg. 2017) — M. Deufert & M. Weißenberger
 * Vol. 60 (Jg. 2018) — M. Deufert, Irmgard Männlein-Robert, & M. Weißenberger
 * Vol. 61 (Jg. 2019) — M. Deufert & I. Männlein-Robert
 * Vol. 62 (Jg. 2020) — M. Deufert & I. Männlein-Robert
 * Vol. 59 (Jg. 2017) — M. Deufert & M. Weißenberger
 * Vol. 60 (Jg. 2018) — M. Deufert, Irmgard Männlein-Robert, & M. Weißenberger
 * Vol. 61 (Jg. 2019) — M. Deufert & I. Männlein-Robert
 * Vol. 62 (Jg. 2020) — M. Deufert & I. Männlein-Robert

And here's a bit on some individual volumes which received book reviews in academic journals:

"For instance, volume 38 was a bibliography of Gregory of Nazianzus, volume 44 was a bibliography of Proclus, and volume 49 was one of Petronius."

Umimmak (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"It [sc., the first volume] included three articles: one by Mette on Homeric scholarship, one by T. B. L. Webster on Ancient Greek archaeology and literature, and one by Rudolf Helm on Post-Augustan poets."

Umimmak (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Jahrgan(g?) 1999
In the History/Editors section, there is this phrase "…until Petersmann's death in 2001, prior to the publication of volume 41 for Jahrgan 1999". The word Jahrgan is tagged as German-language text, yet I cannot find it in any dictionary. Jahrgang however is common, and in this context would be translated quite straightfowardly as year.

As I am far out of my depth here, I'll leave a possible correction to more proficient wikipedians.

Noliscient (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Nope, you were correct, the final “g” just got lost at some point thanks for pointing this out. Also re the use of Jahrgang, asked for clarification, I’ve been using Jahrgang in the article, not year, because so often a volume would be for a particular Jahrgang, but actually be published in an entirely different year. In my mind using two separate words made it clear when I was talking about the year a volume was “for”, and the actual year something happened, but I’m open to other ways to phrase this. Umimmak (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * No matter how convenient, a quite uncommon foreign word in English Wikipedia doesn't actually help the reader. I question whether @Noliscient's use of "common" is for its use in English, which is what is relevant here. I would understand, say, gedankenexpermiment or wanderjahr or schadenfreude, but I've never seen jahrgang. (I'm following English capitalization practice.) I'd refer to "year of publication" and "year covered" or something like that. IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * okay that makes sense for the prose section. Curious if you have a suggestion for how to clarify Jg. 1956 (1957)–present, I agree with you that introducing an uncommon foreign abbreviation is less than ideal, but wasn't sure how else to concisely say the first volume was for the year 1956 but was printed in 1957. Maybe only one of those years is needed, but I wasn't sure which one the reader would assume I'm talking about. I've sometimes seen things like "1956" [1957] where quotation marks go on the year it's "for", and square brackets go around the actual date of publication, but I'm not sure how conventionalized that is. Umimmak (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon that a volume gets published in a different year than is indicated on its masthead/front matter ("Titelei"??). Elsevier journals often publish ahead of time, so that an issue dated, say, 2015 may actually already have been published in 2014. Smaller journals often show the opposite (published in 2015 but still dated 2014). Anyway, if it really is material, I'd write "dated 1956 (appeared 1957)". --Randykitty (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup
regarding your addition of a cleanup tag, could you please be a bit more specific? I think it's important to also include a link to primary sources when relevant; initially I had separated them out to make clear they were not being used as secondary sources and to make clear what the secondary sources actually were, but a previous editor disagreed with that and combined all the footnotes, primary and secondary, together and I conceded on that.

You seem to be using WP:REFBOMBing in a way I'm not familiar with; do you not think this journal is notable enough for Wikipedia? Then we can go to AfD and get consensus, although you've already asked multiple editors about this who thought the article should be kept and that the topic was notable.

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS don't establish notability, sure, but that doesn't mean they can't be used at all if they can be used as citations for useful information which would belong in a thorough Wikipedia article entry.

Which text–source pairs, specifically, "don't support the statements made (unless using OR/SYNTH)"? That's an entirely different issue than if this topic is notable or not and also an entirely different issue from "refbombing". Umimmak (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * IMHO this article is fine -- although there are a couple of places I would copy edit, & maybe a detail or two that don't require referencing. I don't understand why this was tagged, unless the person responsible thought this periodical failed the notability standards. I couldn't give you a set of hard & precise rules why one periodical is notable & another is not, but the fact it was published for more than 60 years, & that it received some favorable mentions should contribute to notability. (I mention its longevity because it shows that Lustrum was not some casual & frivolous creation.) I'm removing the tag, & it shouldn't be restored without a justification. -- llywrch (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)