![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)"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"
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)
Anyone up for List of seventeenth century journals? :-) Carcharoth 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)"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"
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)
Anyone up for List of seventeenth century journals? :-) Carcharoth 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)