Talk:Marginalia

Merge propose
Text annotation seems to cover a lot of the same ground, but appears to have some additional information? --Haruth (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC) @Haruth: a possibility would be to merge the rudimentary History section of Text annotation into Marginalia while merging the IT and Web-based parts into Text annotation. Balaitous (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * An "annotation" is editorial work, i.e. produced with the work by the editor as assistance to the reader, and they may or may not take the form of marginalia, e.g. they may be within the text itself, between the lines, etc.; "marginalia" are inscribed by the reader himself, and may or may not be annotations, e.g. they may be comments on the text instead of notes about it; though technically marginalia may be considered notes as comments, sure, marginalia may also be totally unrelated, i.e. not annotations, such as stories--as the marginalia article indicates, and as such are not to be identified with annotations (again, technically). They are technically distinguished, and the articles on them should not be merged.--TheResearchPersona (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)(<--If it says "tooMuchData" [which it did and I fixed it, errr...] and adds the stupid "unsigned" claim through "sinebot" [which it did,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

 and I fixed it] I'll be sad, as I signed it, but Wikipedia always screws my sig up!!!!!!!!!!) My partner and I are planning to expand the Text annotation article as part of a course project at Carnegie Mellon University; we're hoping, among other revisions, to expand the history section and possibly add more details on the history of paper-based annotations, so perhaps based on those revisions a merge may be reasonable at this point or after some work on that article? Researchers and scholars often use "annotation" to refer to notes, comments, highlights, etc. on text made by readers as well as for editorial purposes, so there is some overlap in the two concepts. aleighc 21:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Cooke (talk

Vulgar Marginalia
Driven here by 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown. I'm surprised that there's no mention of how vulgar some marginalia could be. I'm looking for better sources, but as examples (NSFW people!) there's this and this. Thought it may be worth including. - L &Ograve;&Oacute; kingYourBest (Talk&#124;Edits) 22:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marginalia. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612152511/http://www.sc.edu/fitzgerald/essays/plath.html to http://www.sc.edu/fitzgerald/essays/plath.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Singular form: marginale
We should probably at least note that the most likely correct singular form is marginale and not marginalium, right? See this fine note published by The Bibliographical Society of Australia and New Zealand. Unless there are objections, I'll do that over the coming days. Suggestions welcome. Desde la Torre (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)