Talk:Erratum

EL suggestion.

 * Errata and corrigenda wiki

I'm not putting it in myself because I'm an editor on that site. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-04t14:17z

"An erratum or corrigendum .... is a correction of a book. Errata are most commonly issued..." Sorry, but that's bulls**t. An erratum is the actual mistake, while corrigendum (Latin for "to be corrected") is a note setting the mistake straight. Of course, lists of mistakes in books are often titled as "errata" or "corrigenda", but that doesn't make those words mean "correction of a book". (Strictly speaking, the actual book isn't being corrected at all, it just gets added a sheet with a list of mistakes in it and their respective corrections, but that's probably splitting hairs.) Right now, I don't know what to do about this without getting too wordy, but this can't remain uncommented. 79.221.18.212 (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The OED disagrees. A corrigendum is the actual mistake (that which is to be corrected). An erratum is also the actual mistake, but is chiefly used where it appears in a list of corrections. 81.187.36.50 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

title should be ERRATA
This article currently seems rather odd, in need of improvements... Visiting it for the first time, I'm inclined to think the article title should be ERRATA, since that form of the word is so much more common in ordinary usage today (compared to the seemingly pedantic and rare singular form).-71.174.190.122 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Italic?
To italicise, or not to italicise, that is the question. I.e., ‘errata’, or ‘errata’? Is it fully married into English so part of the family, or a dodgy Latin crasher so in a different uniform?

Or might it be that indecisive ground of being for authorial discretion? (Discreet authors being dull.) In which case, would italic be very old codger?

Comment should be made in the article, citing a definitive source. JDAWiseman (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)