# Talk:Liebigs Annalen

Hi, I'm not sure your move of this article was necessary. This was originally a German journal and German does not use a possessive apostrophe. As you can see on the journal cover, the journal itself didn't use an apostrophe either. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the journal you link only used that title on one issue as an affectation.  Previous covers (eg [1]) use the title EurJOC as far back as I could be bothered to click.  I made the change on the basis of usage in sources, with it first being brought to my attention by this citation.  Checking with online accessible issues it appears the original title was Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie.  That is, it is neither Liebigs Annalen nor Liebig's Annalen, but rather Liebig's Annalen since "Liebig" is not part of the title.  That is what I changed the title of the article to (note the lack of italics on "Liebig").  Later volumes are titled Justus Liebig's Annalen der Chemie up to the most recent volume I can find online [2].  You may well be right that modern German does not take an apostrophe, but clearly it did in 1912, or else it is an aberration by the publishers lasting for decades. SpinningSpark 10:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Weird, I indeed see that the 1912 cover uses the apostrophe. I'm not familiar with German spelling reforms before 1980, so perhaps you're right that it was different at the time. In current German it would be an anglicism. Thanks for the explanation. --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Another note: both according to our article on Justus von Liebig and the German article (de:Justus von Liebig), the journal title was officially changed to Justus Liebigs Annalen der Chemie in his honor (after his death), so "Liebig" would seem to be part of the official name (and should then be italicized). --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
As you probably know already, Wikipedia is not to be considered a reliable source.  Our MOS has a requirement for MOS:#Typographic conformity even within quotations, and I believe style guides such as Chicago have a similar requirement.  If de:wp is following a similar guide they will remove the apostrophe even if it is in the cite.  However, MOS would dictate that we should retain it in English on the same grounds.  We have 39 demonstrable counter-examples in original documents (volumes 1874 to 1912).  The only volumes I can find that omit the apostrophe are in modern reprints, for instance this 1962 reprint of a 1908 volume.  Evidently, the change occured some time between 1913 and 1962, probably coinciding with a general change in German formatting. SpinningSpark 15:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear I guess. I'm not talking about the apostrophe, your link to the 1912 cover was quite convincing. What I'm saying is that the journal got "Justus Liebig" added to its official name after Liebig passed away in 1873. So if his name is part of the official name of the journal, shouldn't "Liebig" then be italicized? --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that, other than to say that WP:COMMON takes precedence over official names.  "Liebig's Annalen", either italicised or not, has never been an official name, but has presumably been used on the basis of common name.  The journal has changed names several times in its history but the article can have only one title; on what basis are you going to decide to choose some intermediate title?  If we are going to go with the official title then we should go with the current official title, which is European Journal of Organic Chemistry, but I don't think that that is an especially good idea in this case. SpinningSpark 16:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that would be my preferred solution if EJoOC would simply be the new name for the Annals, but, of course, that is not the case. EJoC is a new journal (with several predecessors) and the Annals were simply discontinued. So the title, I think, should be the last title that was used, which according to the issues list was Liebigs Annalen. This apparently also used more modern German spelling, without apostrophe... --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I would not trust the online page title to be identical to the actual title without seeing a facsimile—for the same style guideline reasons outlined above.  For instance, compare the Wiley online version with the Internet Archive version for the 1910 volume. SpinningSpark 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you're too distrustful. But ignore the titles in the issues list, if you like. If you continue to see the contents of an issue and click any article title, it will display article info (abstract and such) and the correct bibliographic citation. This you certainly can trust, as academic publishers put a lot of effort in getting citations correct. I picked issue 12 of 1995 and the bibliographic citation given is "Liebigs Annalen" (no italics). Articles are behind a paywall, but if you click "get PDF", you get a preview of the first page (a scanned copy). At the bottom is, again, the bibliographic reference which says "Liebigs Ann." (this time in italics). For me, it's quite clear that the last official title of this journal was Liebigs Annalen... --Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, are we trying to get a mention on WP:Lamest discussions?  Ok, you win. SpinningSpark 18:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 Meaning what, that this needs to get moved back to its previous title? --Randykitty (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Done SpinningSpark 20:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)