Talk:Festschrift

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books Religion Top‑importance Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I know that German capitalizes (most?) nouns, but that isn't the style in English except for proper nouns. Is "Festchrift" an exception? It seems to be capitalized in every use in this article. 128.164.134.99 (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, festschrifts (or however we care to pluralize them) are notable; I'm not about to suggest that this article should be zapped. However, there's a list of notable festschrifts within it, and I wonder how notability is determined. McCawley's first one should surely be in any such list because it's so premature and funny. I happen to have a copy of Kuno's later one on my desk; it seems worthy but there's no obvious reason why it's outstanding. (This may very well be an underestimation: I know little about a lot of the areas of linguistics represented there.) A number of the MIT linguistics festschrifts (e.g. Ken Hale: A Life in Language) are where important papers were first published, and are of considerable academic value even to scholars unconcerned about their dedicatees. -- Hoary 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we agree that the germanic plural 'festschriften' is usable?.bruce 86.200.165.146 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing all festschrifts about which nothing substantive is said (below). -- Hoary 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• B. T. S. Atkins
• Greg L. Bahnsen
• Jacques Barzun
• Jagdish Bhagwati
• Philip J. Currie — Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: New Research Inspired by the Paleontology of Philip J. Currie, — Darren H. Tanke and Keneth Carpenter, ed., Indiana University Press
• Gordon Clark
• Richard Dawkins — How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think
• Hubert Dreyfus
• Sigmund Freud
• Sir Raymond Firth — Three Festschriften in his honour
• Helen Gardner
• Joseph Goguen
• Raul Hilberg
• Richard Hofstadter
• Stephen Kleene
• Meredith G. Kline
  — Creator Redeemer Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline
• Susumu Kuno - two festschrifts
• Pran Nath
• Geoffrey Nuttall
• Thomas Schaub Noonan
• John C. Reynolds — Festschrift for John C. Reynolds’s 70th birthday [1]
• Walt Rostow
• R.J. Rushdoony
  — A Comprehensive Faith
• Carl Sagan
• B.F. Skinner
• A.J.P. Taylor
  - 3 Festschriften: 1965, 1976 and 1986
• Cornelius Van Til
• Peter Ucko - Robert Layton, Stephen Shennan, Peter Stone (eds.) 2006, A Future for Archaeology
• Gerhard Weinberg
• Charles Williams

I agree and would actually recommend removing almost all the Festschrifts on the page except where the Festschrift itself is especially notable. Such Festschrifts might be those in honor of someone's 30's birthday, the person with the most Festschrifts, etc. In many fields (especially in the humanities and social sciences) it'd be more surprising for an exceptionally big name NOT to have a Festschrift than to have one. There's no way that we can list them all -- the Princeton catalog lists 434 entries under ML55 (the library of congress number for Festschrifts in Musicology), I can't imagine how many there'd be in history or philology. Thanks -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to lists, the threshold of inclusion is usually very simple: if a separate article exists for the subject, it is assumed that the subject is notable, because otherwise there would be no article (at least not for long). After all, why establish notability twice? Therefore, Dawkins's festschrift, through which I have come across this article in the first way, is no doubt suited for inclusion, but if it is the only one so far, a list is pointless. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native German speaker but not a particular expert on IPA policies in Wikipedia. I can't imagine that the "R" in "Festschrift" is pronounced differently in the singular (here given as German pronunciation: [ˈfɛstʃʁɪft]) and in the plural form [ˈfɛstʃrɪftən]). According to the IPA overview (first link), some German speakers say "ʁ" whereas others say "r", so I guess that in this article we should (arbitrarily?) choose either "ʁ" or "r" consistently. --Langec (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both have [r] now. Good call: Not only for simplicity, but also because [ʁ] is by no means the only possible realisation of the German rhotic /r/; [r], for example, is equally correct and in use, for example in a significant part of Switzerland. Even alveolar and retroflex approximants are occasionally heard, so the Anglicised pronunciation festshrift is completely intelligible and in no way confusing even to a monolingual German speaker. Essentially, you can pronounce it any way you want, as any realisation listed in Rhotic consonant is found with some speakers. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the correct way is using Hochdeutsch, the German standard. Simon de Danser (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The figure shows a different type of Festschrift, something called, I think, an anniversary publication in English, it's definitely not academic. It's titled something like "Festschrift for the 25th anniversary of the Regensburg branch of the German and Austrian Alpine Club". This is a different thing (but can be called Festschrift in German as well). Any library should have some academic Festschriften, which could be used for illustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.41.49 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title be italic as we are speaking about the concept not a particular festschrift? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if "Festschrift" is considered a foreign term. I'd say it's not, as it's present in English dictionaries. Opencooper (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per