Talk:List of eighteenth century journals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class by the project members.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)
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)

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

[edit] How many in 17th century?

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

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)
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)