Talk:List of 18th-century journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Untitled

Note: All data on this page should be checked by an expert. Whilst all items are sourced, the dates are dates of specific folios at present, rather than publication from-to, and other information may be erratic depending on what is documented in online sources.

Expert cleanup needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Thanks for putting this page up. I imagine 19th century journals would not work because there'd be too many. Anyway, what a great idea and resource, thanks again. Alastair Haines 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 500 others

that could also be added, I'm not sure about the best way to go--limit to a few of the notable ones like this? Or do a table of them all, divided by field. I have the material at hand. (starting with Kronick's History of Scientific and Technical periodicals,and then various lists by subject field. ) Kronick gives enough information to write articles on many, but not all of them, but Im not up to that right now. DGG (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure about the legislative "journals" these are really a different sort of publication. DGG (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journal seems to mean "published regularly, or containing notes, observations and writings made over time". (Not a dicdef, but seems to be how the word's used.) Thus - a book containing a person's personal journal 1700 - 1720... the proceedings of some body or group... and so on. I dont see journals of governmental origin being that much different, initially. Maybe at this time they are but back then? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long lists aren't a problem actually :) The issue would be "is there some notability criterion, or do we list them all (possibly with a bullet list of "minor journals")? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government journals may well provide reliable sources regarding formation or implementation of policy. They may also provide a published record of the perspective of administrators rather than that of legislators. I can see other value. This is a project that needs more than one contributor. How accessible is Kronick? Alastair Haines 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lists of Journals are used in WP in the sense of academic journals, though the meaning of journal is more varied--see journal. Given the number of items, the obvious couse is to split out the part on academic journals into an appropriately titled article, which will have a homogenous focus. Lists of published legislative and personal journals are really separate genres, and if anyone wants to work on them, all them better, but the sources and the important facts to give will not be the same for the groups. If nobody objects,

I'm going to move the academic journals to a subarticle under summary style, and work on them--at least to fix the current ones. (Philosophical transactions... for example is on science, not philosophy). Criteria are a problem-- it is tempting to use something like duration being more than x years, or at least being more than one issue--but some of the ones that never got beyond that are actually important. given the obscurity of other sources of information, I suppose it would be good to aim at being complete. Kronick is held only in specialist libraries, and there are other books, at least for the part of the field I know. Google books and the like are making this sort of information easier to find. DGG (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're making a good judgement call to me. Thanks for documenting that here too. I suspect the notability criterion is particularly important when data is incomplete, lest some other systematic selection bias creeps in. I'm convinced that Wiki lists will ultimately provide more popular content for interested researchers using the web because of the simple Wiki linking system. Whether that proves true or not, Wiki itself will be particularly well served by this kind of information. Take your time and enjoy steady progress DGG. When regular editing gets too heated, I retire to list work, which I rather enjoy. Thanks again on behalf of future readers. Alastair Haines 08:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

Journal des sçavans is missing, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society should be under science, not philosophy (see natural philosophy). If this gets to unwieldy, a category may better, though that won't cover ones we don't have articles on. Carcharoth 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought - the dividing line by century is rather arbitrary. This lot is from Astronomische Nachrichten# note-1:
"Gottfried Kirch's Ephemeriden (1681) and the Berliner Astronomisches Jahrbuch (1774), founded by Johann Heinrich Lambert and Johann Elert Bode. Elsewhere in Europe there had been other efforts at publishing astronomical material in journal form. These included the monthly Allgemeine Geographisches Ephemeriden (1798), edited by Franz Xaver von Zach under the patronage of Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha"
But if you look at the full footnote, you will see that history is a continuous process, so separating across a "century" dividing line rarely makes sense. I prefer timelines for this reason. A timeline of the founding of journals by various subjects might work. Carcharoth 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there might be a good reason to use 1790, which is where (I think -- I'm going from memory right now) the coverage of Kronick ends. But I want to check on the possible availability of even better sources.

A timeline might be a good idea, though it wouldnt show the subject. Possibly one timeline for each subject? DGG (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journal des sçavans isn't missing, it's under "other" :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many in 17th century?

Anyone up for List of seventeenth century journals? :-) Carcharoth 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you ask this question, it reminds me that we have a substantial collection known as The Babylonian Chronicles. How far back do journals go? What differentiates the journals we're interested in from other periodicals?

Periodically published reference collations of knowledge go back a very long way, however printed and peer-reviewed sources are obviously restricted by the date of the printing press, and by the establishment of learned societies. Alastair Haines 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian Chronicles. They would be chronicles, not academic journals. Still, I do mean the establishment of printed publications and learned societies, as you point out. Carcharoth 00:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I opened a List of early-modern journals as I had created such a list on Germany's Wikipedia. The present list is problematic - and interesting - in its cohesion. It includes periodicals and personal diaries due to the fact that both used the same generic term. I had not forseen this problem since I was initially working on a German de:Liste frühmoderner Zeitschriften, the German word was less ambivalent. I am not quite sure what to think about the clash. It might make sense to keep things together, it might make as much sense to focus on periodicals (and to include there titles that were supposed to become poeriodicals even if they did not manage. The List of early-modern journals is, in any case much larger at the moment. I'd plead for a merger of these lists. --Olaf Simons (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

I noticed a number of references are the url to a Google Book link. I though editors might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I used it to improve two such references.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of 18th-century journals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]