Talk:Konsthistorisk tidskrift

Cleanup

Could you please explain how this article needs to be "cleaned up"? --Hegvald (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW, for some of the work you put into the article, but some of the changes seem rather unmotivated and need to be reverted. For example, the title is Konsthistorisk tidskrift, not Konsthistorisk Tidskrift. Same thing for other proper nouns of publications and societies; Swedish does not use "title case" the way English does. These proper nouns were all, I believe, fine as they were.

You also removed things in the history section that gave important context, such as names and positions of people involved at the time the society was started. And what was wrong with pointing out that "The society was clearly Stockholm-centric from the start: Sirén and Roosval became chairman and vice chairman, respectively"? This was sourced to a book on the history of art history in Sweden. The only reason I can see to remove either of these things would be if a separate article were to be written on the society, and I don't think that is needed. In any case, it functions as background for the later decision to start a journal published in Stockholm, as opposed to the already existing one (Tidskrift för konstvetenskap) published in Lund.

I will keep out of the article right now as others are working on it, but will get back to it in a couple of days. --Hegvald (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think the list of "publishers" and "editors" should be pared down. Having a list of the equivalent of "editors in chief" is fine for a journal article, but I have the impression that the "publishers" are basically the persons handling the day-to-day running of the journal and those are generally not listed in journal articles. Thanks for the note about capitals. I did check this and was thrown off by the fact that the T&F site uses capitals for the header of the page. Further down they don't and the journal cover (the final arbiter, so to so), doesn't do either, so I'll change this back. As for the Stockholm-centric thing, the way the reference was placed I understood it to source the persons and thought that the "Stockholm-centric" remark constituted unallowable synthesis. I'll change that, too. The references need to be cleanup up, too. Most of what is under "databases" can be deleted. The section "Recognition" should be renamed and retitled. The "Notes" are the "references" and the "references" should either be deleted or be used to source statements in the article and reformatted as real references. Finally, several references should be (re-)formatted to adhere to WP standards.Hope this helps explain the tag. --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I never really liked the "recognition" section. The reason I added it was, quite honestly, to dodge deletion requests based on "notability" (I have seen some silly ones). The journal has an article in Swedish encyclopaedia Nationalencyklopedin, which could possibly be seen as an "assertion of notability", but as it is only a few lines short and useless as a source I saw no reason to mention it or cite it here. (Not that it would stop some random 14-year old in Kansas from nominating a subject for deletion when he discovers that it is seemingly irrelevant for an understanding of professional wrestling.)

Wikipedia has no standard for reference formatting, so I am not sure what you mean on this point. As for "Notes" vs. "References", the first section contains citations and remarks, the other an alphabetical list that gives an overview of the sources used. The "references" section could be called "Bibliography", "Works cited" or something else, but as Wikipedia has no standard for this, I ended up with this one. This is my preferred form of referencing.

The title of the persons responsible for the journal has had no common standard over the years, I am not sure what exactly the division of responsibility was. I'll check the obits of the people to see what, if anything, they say about their involvement in the journal. In any case it is all part of the journal's history and most of the people are important enough in the field to get articles eventually (certainly Karling, Reuterswärd, Andersson. Pochat and Brummer too, but they both still appear to be alive and I'd prefer not to start articles on living people. Possibly one or two of the others, not sure.) --Hegvald (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, there are standards for citing references, that's why there are such things as citation templates. If the "bibliography" contains sources that were used to write this article, then it should be easy to integrate them as proper references. The reason the templates that are currently used in the "notes" section are called "reflist" or "references" is because that is what they contain: references... To get familiar with WP standards, please refer to the manual of style and the guidelines linked from there. Editorial boards are "part of a journal's history", too, and the people that are on those boards are often very notable (like Nobel prize winners, national academy members, etc). Nevertheless, as you may see from the writing guide for articles on academic journals. --Crusio (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The division of "Notes" and "References" (or "Bibliography" or something) is not only very consistent with what I was taught in university, but is used in many Wikipedia articles, including many featured articles. As for "standards" -- if you actually checked the relevant guidelines, rather than just referring to them in a patronizing manner, you would find that people are allowed to use any standard common outside Wikipedia, which does not impose a single standard of its own on all articles. --Hegvald (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted some changes made by Crusio and others over the last several weeks. These include:

• The infobox, which gave undue prominence to some aspects and included uncited information. E.g. that the language of the journal is Swedish with English summaries, as the infobox stated, is only partly correct. The very first issue of the journal from 1932 indeed had articles in Swedish with English summaries, but recent issues contain articles completely in English. A sampling of issues over the years included at least one from the late 1940s where half the articles were in German. As I cannot find a source summarizing this anywhere, nothing about language has been included in the current version.
• Named references have been reverted. I find these a pain in the ass to work with and see no good reason to ever use them.
• Historical information has been restored. Crusio removed names of people involved and other contextualizing information (and argued to remove even more, see above). As I see it, there is no good reason why the current editor of a journal (who has in this case been in the position for a year or less) should be given particular prominence by being put in a framed box in the upper right corner, while people who had an historical affiliation with the journal spanning decades should be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a directory of currently published journals.

That's it, more or less. I did this while still trying to incorporate improvements in formatting made over several edits by different users.--Hegvald (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)