Talk:Critical apparatus

Don't move to Wiktionary
Although the present article is inadequate, an encyclopedia-class article is very much a possibility, and should be written. Marc Shepherd 13:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparatus Criticus?
Is the term "apparatus criticus" still used outside of Classical Studies? That's the term I'm familiar with and I was surprised to see it not even referenced here. It probably deserves at least a mention and a redirect-from link when this article is expanded. 149.159.109.122 18:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Added parenthetical comment to lead, and added new redirect from apparatus criticus.-Andrew c [talk] 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance?
Critical apparatus and textual criticism in general are, majourly, the province of Classical Studies, and not only in historical development, but in scope and (by far) expertise. They are also far more fundamental to it than to any other area of study. The article, pointing to Shakespereana, is certainly inadequate. Aren't there any volunteers to rewrite it? 201.19.206.17 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would vigorously dispute the premise that critical apparatus and textual criticism are mainly the province of Classical Studies. The method described in the article has been used for works of all periods. Shakespeare and Hamlet in particular was chosen as an example, simply because a lot of readers are likely to be familiar with it. There are multiple editions of Hamlet that use this type of apparatus.


 * Feel free to add more, but the article hasn't had a substantive update in two years, so it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of attention. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on Wikipedia
Strictly speaking, this section does not belong; I added it for three reasons: (1) as a meditation on Wikipedians as editors with the highest possible standards and accountability; (2) as a practical example, which may help some people quickly grasp the arcane nature of a critical apparatus, the thinking behind it; and (3) once the following section Electronic representation is more developed, ways to make this section more cogent may emerge.

Perhaps others could make edits to better reflect Wikipedian philosophy, and to improve the description of the Wikipedia quality control apparatus, with links to articles where a full explanation is given. If this is rolled back immediately, I will be disappointed. If, after a year of no such edits being made, it is rolled back, well then, let it sink without a ripple.Momosaburo (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed it (coincidentally almost exactly on) as it seemed like a pretty clear example of original research. Are there any secondary sources we can cite that make the connection? It wouldn't surprise me, but from a cursory look I can't see anything. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Positive apparatus criticus
The phrases "positive apparatus criticus" and "negative apparatus criticus" are fairly frequently used (the former more than the latter), but I can't work out what either means. I expect it would be useful to define these terms if anyone knows what they mean and/or has any sources that could be cited. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)