Talk:Nota bene
Add topic | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punctuation
[edit]Minute issue, but 'nb' without full stops / periods is becoming very common in British English, not sure where to get a reference source for this though so didn't make any changes... Perhaps someone could oblige?!
Redirect
[edit]Don't see this becoming a non-stub any time soon, should it be redirected to the Latin phrases page? Richard001 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do so! Robert Greer (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, also, there's no reason to give some obscure software program free ad space. 69.181.202.132 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've addressed this particular problem (see here). Nota Bene is actually a quite notable word processor. —J.P. Doul (TALK/CONTRIBUTIONS) 20:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just to second that: the Nota Bene software suite is highly regarded in academia. (No surprise to see it dissed on Wikipedia, then!) – Brunellus (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've addressed this particular problem (see here). Nota Bene is actually a quite notable word processor. —J.P. Doul (TALK/CONTRIBUTIONS) 20:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, also, there's no reason to give some obscure software program free ad space. 69.181.202.132 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do so! Robert Greer (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message
[edit] | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Software and Yale Texts
[edit]Information about the Nota Bene word processor and Yale University texts belong in seperate articles. I'm creating the word processor page. I don't know if the Yale texts are notable or not, but that information doesn't belong here. —J.P. Doul (TALK/CONTRIBUTIONS) 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct pronunciation
[edit]Italian and latin correct pronunciation for "nota bene" is only one (it is the same for every italian word). You should correct this page as I did: somebody has reverted my edit, nobody knows why. user:88.58.4.130 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.58.4.130 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't revert your edit but I've added English IPA /ˈnoʊtɑːˈbɛnɛ/. I'm not sure we need the alternative pronunciation for this phrase but have left them in anyway in case anyone can think of a good reason. Benchamoneh (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that in Italian pronunciation there is no "ʊ", neither "ː". :-) (Take a look at Italian phonology.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree. No diphtongs here. Sadly, English seems to have a tradition of imposing its own phonology on foreign words. One might better adapt to this tradition until some general reform arise. However, the rest of the world has the tradition of more closely following the original pronunciation, so it would be educative for English readers to see and thus be able to comprehend that one, too. Providus (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would say that in Italian pronunciation there is no "ʊ", neither "ː". :-) (Take a look at Italian phonology.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Addition of disambig link to WP formatting command page - question?
[edit]I added an explicit disambiguation link to the WP formatting page for making a nb reference link ([Template:Markup#Examples]). The reason is that I would imaging that many beginning editors (myself included) wanting to know how to create such a note go to Google (or wha(tever) and type in "Wikipedia note bene" or something similar. This not surprisingly, brings up this article as the first or second best "bone in the pile" of search results. Hence my edit.. What are the general policies for including such disambig links pointing to wikipedia formatting/help pages? I don't see them much, leading me to think there is a policy against adding such. Useful as I think they might be for beginning editors, I won't get into an edit war over it (perhaps there should be a "Wikimedia Help Only" checkbox on the search page (there isn't, nor does a "nota bene" search bring up the Formatting page..) Jimw338 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
where are examples of typical use of each form mentioned in this article?
[edit]- NB
- Note that this form is not currently in the article....
- Note
- N.B.
Usage before 1721
[edit]N.B. seems to have been used to Joseph Addison's "No.102" (1711). Yet article says "circa 1721"? 2605:E000:1610:8132:8480:5591:FA18:4EBD (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hfhawthorne (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
It's been found as early as 1651 (see the recently revised entry for NB in the Oxford English Dictionary: 1651 J. French tr. J. R. Glauber Descr. New Philos. Furnaces 124 "N.B. If the black stinking oyle be rectified from the calcined Caput Mortuum, it will be clear and subtle.")
Relation to 'reference mark' ※
[edit]In Chinese/Japanese/Korean ※ (reference mark) is used in a similar way to NB in English (and other languages). Would it be appropriate to have a section here on equivalents to NB in other languages? I have suggested in the talk page for ※ that the connection to NB should be drawn somehow. --- Stephen.G.McAteer (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sure! I've just See Also'd the pages to each other, since I don't feel there's much more to say on the matter. But that's just my personal taste. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's a very large family of these marks and conventions across languages and cultures, as can be seen starting at Obelism#See also and going down that rabbit hole... Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
N.B listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect N.B. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
synonym for footnote?
[edit]This sounds very wrong to me:
In Modern English, since the 14th century, the editorial usage of NB is common to the legal style of writing of documents to direct the reader's attention to a thematically relevant aspect of the subject that qualifies the matter being litigated, whereas in academic writing, the editorial abbreviation n.b. is a casual synonym for footnote.
What does NB have to do with footnote? And surely the use of NB is so popular in emails and even in speech that it doesn't make sense to mention only academic and legal uses? Modefier (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- It also seems strange to me to refer to footnotes as n.b.. I'll slap a [citation needed] on there. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- On the other hand... people be doing strange and colloquial things... from time to time... Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think n.b. is far more common in academic and legal writing than common or vernacular speech/writing, but I agree it's not unheard of among the laity. I guess no one has bothered to flesh-out the page with anything talking about its mundane (equivalent) usage; feel free to do this and/or find some sources to cite about that :) Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)