This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you canjoin the project anddiscuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation. To improve this article, please refer to therelevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook WritingLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Writing, aWikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

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 ofText annotation intoMarginalia while merging the IT and Web-based parts intoText annotation.Balaitous (talk)06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 inscribedby 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,[reply]

—Precedingunsigned comment added byTheResearchPersona (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 theText 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 aswell as for editorial purposes, so there is some overlap in the two concepts. aleighc 21:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byAna Cooke (talk

Driven here by8 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'sthis andthis. Thought it may be worth including. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits)22:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onMarginalia. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20110612152511/http://www.sc.edu/fitzgerald/essays/plath.html tohttp://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.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

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

We should probably at least note that the most likely correct singular form ismarginale and notmarginalium, right? Seethis 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)[reply]

• B-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• B-Class Writing articles
• Low-importance Writing articles
• WikiProject Writing articles