Talk:Style guide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Other languages

I removed an editor's note urging listing of style guides in other languages (all articles are incomplete, suggested improvements go on the talk page), but I agree it could be very interesting to expand this page to include foreign language guides. I have a couple for Spanish. Instead of errors or mistakes, they talk about dudas ("doubts)), which is much more humane. Ortolan88 18:21 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Tautology

Ok, trickiness here. tautology wants to link to [[style]], a disambiguation page. The appropriate page to link to, according to [[style]], is The Chicago Manual of Style. This would obviously be confusing. Style seems to only be defined here. Is it worth making a stub for 'writing style' or some such which would probably never grow out of stub-status? Or is there a better place to link to in tautology? --Spikey 03:38, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mumble mumble I think there could easily be a full article on "writing style"; however, I'm not volunteering to write it at the moment. I think that I discovered last night that this is the only reasonably place for "style" to go at the moment (I chged it last night from Chicago), but I'm disinclined to change the link in tautology to "style guide" because it could get stuck there forever. If that makes sense. Maybe we ought to create a stub anyway and find all style & style guide links and figure out where they really belong... Also not volunteering to do that at the moment...  :-/ ... Elf | Talk 17:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago standing

Hi Elf--Re.

"arguably the most commonly used American English style guide"

I think it would be helpful it you could make clear what is the basis of your claim, for example, with sales figures or Amazon rankings or some similar data. In other words, this ought to be a factual matter; one only says "arguably" when expressing an opinion or interpretation. Cheers, Opus33 16:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'm trying to remember all the way back to last night--I was fixing some links and text in several related places, and removed something from one place about Chicago being the most popular or some such, and put the note here instead--in my experience in technical writing and in fiction writing, Chicago is the most commonly referenced style guide, but I don't in fact have any figures to prove it (and I don't know whether the original did, either), so I modified it with "arguably". Could change to "possibly" or remove the qualifier, but I believe it to be true. For what that's worth-- Elf | Talk 17:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Manual of Style

(William M. Connolley 11:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Should this page be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style???

No, the this page is the entry about style guides. The latter is the guide we use for the Wikipedia. I think this is linked from there. Maurreen 12:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite problems

jguk, I realize I suggested you try adding to this entry. I agree with spelling out "United Kingdom" and "United States." But little else of your changes.

  1. Concerning the supposed descriptive nature of style guides: What do you base that on?
  2. The part about "Correct English" might be better in an article about grammar or the English language.
  3. In the links and references section, you made it less precise by removing people’s initials.

Maurreen 04:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To respond to your comments in the order in which you raise them:
  1. Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third Edition) is a descriptive style guide.
  2. The bit on 'Correct English' what the bit of the rewrite I was least happy with, and why I called my edit a 'first stab'. I also note, with puzzlement, that the article does not seem to cross-refer to grammar. No doubt it should. I think a far more intellectual discussion on 'Correct English', as I have termed it, belongs somewhere. I'm easy on whether it is in this article, or in another article that this article links to.
  3. I deleted some initials to avoid having to choose between a style that has full stops after initials and one that doesn't. I don't think it's confusing as the ISBN's of the books are present. That said, if the books themselves style the authors' names with initials, I shan't complain if you re-add them.
I'll pass on amending the article to add references to FMEU being a descriptive style guide and linking the article to grammar until you've had a chance to consider my comments.jguk 18:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we leave the article as is until we reach consensus.
So far, I think we can agree on linking to the grammar article, moving your "Correct English" section, and listing authors' initials as they were in the references and links section.
But if Fowler's is a descriptive style guide, can you cite a source, quote an authority who says so? Maurreen 04:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Move the 'Correct English' section to where though? (This is an open question as I don't know where best to put it if it's not here.)
Do you have a copy of the new Fowler's? I think it's clear from the way it's written that it's descriptive. Birchfield does offer his opinion on many points, but makes clear it is an opinion, he reports all significant usage that he has found regardless of his personal views and he never gives an instruction unless there is only one form that's widely acceptable. If you don't have Fowler's, I'll see what I can quote from it and from reviews of it to persuade you. jguk 06:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
About "Correct English": Have you browsed through related articles? Perhaps the points you want to make are already covered. (Maybe "Prescription and description" would be a good place to start. There is a whole category for grammar, which is subcategory of linguistics, etc.)
About Fowler's and description: I don't have that book handy, but here is a definition of "stylebook" from Webster's New World College Dictionary -- "a book consisting of examples or rules of style." 63.165.209.142 06:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Maurreen
The above comments were from me. I had computer trouble and couldn't stay logged on. Maurreen 04:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK. I've seen Prescription and description. A link into therewould be ok.
Now you've seen the definition of stylebook in Webster's, may I take it you agree that a stylebook can be descriptive (examples) or prescriptive (rules)? jguk 06:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking that Prescription and description might be more appropriate for your "Correct English" section.
And no, I do not agree that stylebooks are descriptive. The "examples" are not of "common usage" but of "style," a particular way of doing things.
Look up "prescriptivism" in Fowler's. It says: "Readers can easily distinguish between the two approaches [prescriptivism and descriptivism] by consulting the entries for expressions like all right/alright, anticipate, decimate. ..."
And under "all right," it says: "The use of 'all right, or inability to seee what is wrong with 'alright,' reveals one's background, upbringing, education, etc., perhaps as much as any word in the langauge.'" Maurreen 00:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We are agreed on Prescription and description on the "Correct English" point (though my wording isn't particularly good and needs improvement anyway).
Birchfield in FMEU does offer his opinion in many places, but does not prescribe that you use it. The article for 'all right' is clearly descriptive. It does not say whether you should use 'all right' or 'alright', but points out where each is used and informs the reader as to which form might be most appropriate in given settings: it is for the reader to decide which form they actually use. It is easy for a reader to distinguish that this is descriptive. What about the entry for "due to", are you claiming this is prescriptive too? Personally, I like the entry for "one word or two", which is purely descriptive (and note that 'recommendations' are not the same as 'rules'):
At any given time, the language contain elements that are written together (or with a hyphen) by some writers, and as separate elements by others. The editorial committees of publishing houses come and go and make their decisions in these matters as is their right. But, thank God, there is no superfamily of scholars and writers - such as an academy or linguistic politburo - with the powers to impose uniformity on us all. As a result, the custom of this publishing house or that is to encourage their house-style: to get under way or to get underway; straight away or straightaway; any more or anymore; common sense or common-sense or commonsense; loanword or loan-word or loan word; teenager or teen-ager. In some cases a difference of meaning governs the way in which the parts are written (see e.g. EVERYONE and every one). More often the choice is just a matter of custom or fashion. An attempt has been made in the present book to make recommendations in all such matters, esp., but not only, for writers, printers, and the general public in the UK. Further joinings or severances of such word-elements are bound to occur in the future. Our language is a restless one: none of its components is static or wholly governable.
jguk 06:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that for us to work this out just between the two of us will be slow at best. I am going to seek in put from the audience at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Maurreen 15:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Descriptive" style guides

  1. Can you cite a source? Does anyone other than you say that style guides are not prescriptive by definition?
  2. I think we differ on the meaning of "descriptive." Do you agree with this, from the description and prescription article?
'For example, a descriptive linguist (descriptivist) working in English will try to describe the usage, social and geographical distribution, and history of "ain't" and "h-dropping" neutrally, without judging them as good or bad, superior or inferior.' Maurreen 03:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I listed this article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please do not change the question I listed. If you want to list another question, that's up to you. Maurreen 03:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The RfC question misses the point though. I'm not saying all style manuals are descriptive. That would be nonsense. Style manuals used by publishing houses and newspapers necessarily have to be prescriptive or they will miss their point. But style manuals devised for users who do not have a need to maintain complete consistency with other writers do not need to prescribe. Read more of FMEU (try "kinda") and you will see what I mean. jguk 04:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If my question misses the point, what would you suggest?
And your statements are still not supported by anyone but yourself. "Less prescriptive" is different from "not prescriptive." Do you agree that "descriptive", in this context, means "value-neutral"? Maurreen 18:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Much of FMEU is value-neutral. (And I don't see that making recommendations, rather than prescriptions, or expressing a view, whilst noting there are perfectly acceptable alternatives, destroys value-neutrality.) Let's look at FMEU again, and go back to your earlier example. What does Burchfield prescribe: "all right", "alright" or avoiding the word altogether? The answer is he doesn't. He describes how using "all right" or "alright" may appear to a certain audience.
If you don't like the word "descriptive", but are willing to accept that FMEU (and some other style guides) are not especially "prescriptive" either, maybe we could find a slightly different terminology that you wouldn't find so problematic. I have no particular attachment to the word "descriptive" itself. jguk 20:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
With your last paragraph, I think we are making progress toward something we can both agree on. If you want to say that some style guides are less prescriptive than others, that doesn't bother me. Maurreen 02:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with the classification of style guides into prescriptive and descriptive. I disagree that the latter exists. What do you suggest to move this discussion along?

Maurreen 20:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To move this along, I suggest a survey. Would you like to draft the question? Maurreen 05:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about describing prescriptive style guides first, then moving on to 'other style guides' or 'more descriptive style guides'. I'm not convinced by a survey, who or what would we survey? I remain puzzled as to why you think that Burchfield's book is prescriptive. It makes recommendations in places, but can hardly be called prescriptive. jguk 10:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1. If you want to divide style guides, these divisions make sense to me: those for publishers and other style guides, or those for different languages, or Burchfield's and all others. If you are focused on his, you could put your comments on the Fowler's page.
2. A survey is a step in the process to resolve our dispute. We can survey anyone who cares to take part.
3. If Burchfield's book is purely descriptive and not prescriptive, you should be able to cite a source. Maurreen 15:08, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


1. Part agree. But comments should be made on this page too that there are style guides not for publishers that are not prescriptive.
2. So far you've already labelled it up as a dispute and looked for comments on the Manual of Style page. The only knowledgeable comment has come from Jallan, which supports my contention that some style guides are not prescriptive, and indeed are more descriptive in nature than prescriptive.
3. I thought you'd gotten hold of a copy of Burchfield's book now. Withou wishing to be rude, wouldn't it be easier for you to read it? Maybe answer my question - what does Burchfield prescribe: 'all right', 'alright' or to avoid the term?

jguk 15:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. As I said before, I disagree that any style guide exists that is not prescriptive. Can you clarify what part that I said that you do agree with?
2. I don't get your point about No. 2. Are you saying that you object to a survey or you disagree that we have a dispute or what? And we interpret Jallan's comments differently.
3. What would be easiest, if your opinion is more than your opinion, is to cite a source that agrees with you. You have not done so after more than 10 days. "Less prescriptive" is not the same as "not prescriptive." "More descriptive" is not the same as "wholly descriptive." Maurreen 15:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The point is the FMEU is not wholly prescriptive. Some bits are, some bits clearly are not. I thought you were agreeing that we could start the article with prescriptive style guides, and then mention that there were others for more general readers that were more descriptive. That's my proposed compromise.

John Updike in The New Yorker:

To Burchfield, the English language is a battlefield upon which he functions as a non-combatant observer.
Burchfield in Fowler's Modern English Usage:
I believe that 'stark preachments' belong to an earlier age of comment on English usage.
Though he also says:
Linguistic correctness is perhaps the dominant theme of this book.

jguk 16:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Your new version is better, but still not acceptable. As I said before, I think it will be slow at best for us to resolve this just between us. Which of these options do you prefer? Maurreen 18:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. A survey
  2. Ask Jallan to come to this page and help us.
  3. Mediation


First I'd like to understand your position. Perhaps if you could answer these:
  1. Do you think it is impossible for a style guide to be anything other than prescriptive? (I mean generally here - it's clearly impractical for a newspaper to have anything other than a prescriptive style guide.)
  2. Are you saying there cannot be a descriptive style guide (by definition)?
  3. Are you saying that whilst most style guides are prescriptive, some may be less than prescriptive but without being purely descriptive either?
  4. What would you call something that looks like a style guide, is set out like a style guide, does not fit well into the definition of a grammar, but is descriptive in nature rather than prescriptive?

jguk 18:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You answer my questions with questions, or not at all. I have listed our disagreement at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Maurreen 19:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand your position. You have consistently not answered my questions. Mediation won't work until you do. Indeed - if your answers to the four questions above are yes-yes-no-something other than style guides - then we are poles apart, and mediation won't work unless you're willing to give ground. It would be a factual dispute. Surveys and mediation can't decide facts. If it's no-no-yes-maybe call it a style guide, we're virtually there. jguk 19:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments copied from Talk:Wikipedia:Manual of Style

What would be the point of a descriptive style guide? Hyacinth 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or, the question is: Are style guides prescriptive by definition? Maurreen 03:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would say not. A "guide" is often something that shows you around an area, so I see no reason why a style guide couldn't be a map rather than a set of rules. I can't see what use this would be of (outside of in the development of future style guides, maybe a synthesis of guides). Hyacinth 04:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The latest version of the best known British English style guide, Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd Edition), is a mostly descriptive style guide. An interesting read, if you're into that kind of thing, though there are other style guides out there that are even more descriptive. [1]. Birchfield's rewrite of Fowler into a far less prescriptive (and thereforE into a descriptive) form was not universally popular. [2] See in particular the first reviewer's comments. As far as the point of them: well, they are not suitable for publishers and newspapers as they don't impose consistency. They are suitable for users interested in how language is used and help the user decide what form of words, spelling, etc to choose for the particular audience the user is addressing. jguk 07:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement

(To remind me, at least)

  • Spelling out "United Kingdom" and United States."
  • Leaving authors' initials in the links and reference section.
  • Linking to Wikipedia article on grammar.

63.165.209.142 06:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Me again, or still. Maurreen 04:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Understanding the Dispute

Hi, I'm trying to understand the dispute. Currently, the article states that "some modern style guides" ... "do not fit neatly into either the prescriptive/descriptive classification that is used by some linguistic scholars." Maureen's objection seems to be that you have no evidence that anyone (other than jkug) views style guides as non-prescriptive. Correct?

  • On one side, one can take various statements in Fowler (and other books), by themselves, and see them on their face as apparently non-judgemental descriptions of common usages rather than prescriptions per se. jguk also cites a couple of quotations about the style guide that might support this view. (Please note, however, that you can be prescriptive and still say that the rules are not rigid; at least one of the quotes is ambiguous in this regard.)
  • On the other side, the common understanding of a style guide is "obviously" (?) a prescription of what style to use, and it is reasonable to think that this how the books are understood as a whole (isolated quotations aside); the burden of proof is arguably on jguk to show that there is an understanding (not just by you) to the contrary. Or, more generally, for Wikipedians themselves to perform a descriptive/prescriptive breakdown of style guides, without evidence that such a breakdown is used elsewhere, or to suggest that this breakdown has changed over time (again without citation), verges on original research.

Would it be better if we completely avoided the question of descriptive vs. prescriptive style guides unless and until we find explicit outside opinions that we can simply quote on the matter? Remember that Wikipedia is not (ideally) a repository of our own opinions.

—Steven G. Johnson 21:02, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that is what I have been trying to say. Maurreen 20:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to avoid the use of the words 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' (except in the 'See also' section). I've already stated that I am not saying that the article has to use the term 'descriptive'. But the article would be missing something if it only referred to style guides used by publishing houses and not those used by the general public. How these are described (as long as they are differentiated from the type of guides publishing houses have), I do not care. jguk 21:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I said before, if you want to divide style guides into two groups, you can divide them between those for publishers and those for others. Note that such a grouping is different from "prescriptive" and others.
This version of the article, which you reverted, included the sentence: "Some style guides, such as Fowler's Modern English Usage, are less prescriptive than others, such as those by publishers," which seems to be your point. Maurreen 21:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've put forward a revised article which doesn't mention either prescriptive or descriptive (except in the See also section). I'm not at all sure about the last paragraph. I think it either needs improving or deleting. Feel free to make changes to the rest of the article too (assuming we're both agreed to avoid the words 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' in the text. jguk 22:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Latest version

Thanks, the latest version is much better. I have some smaller changes to come, but I think we've found enough common ground.

I think the above intervention by an outside was very helpful. But I'll remove or update the request for mediation. (I'm not sure what the procedure is.) Maurreen 22:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Design

I just thought of this today. I'm hesitant to bring it up, but maybe we'll even agree on this tangential point. :) I think the introduction should mention design guides, perhaps with a sentence like this at the end: Some style guides consider or focus on graphic design aspects, such as typography and white space. Maurreen 21:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If by 'design guides' you mean what you describe in your last sentence, then yes, we should mention them. We should also mention 'web style guides' too, that show how webpages should be constructed (when I searched on google for 'style guide' I got loads of them, I'm sure you did too). jguk 22:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think web style guides would be included in one or both of the above, but it's OK to me whether they are listed specifically or not. Maurreen 22:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Countries

If anyone dislikes how I handled "U.S." and "U.K," as adjectives, I'm not particular, but I'm going to bring up the general issue of country order at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Maurreen 16:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago manual

This was deleted: "The Chicago manual has one of the highest, if not the highest, sales ranking at Amazon.com." Maurreen 07:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I deleted it as it isn't a very good sentence. It sounds like pure conjecture, IMHO 'one of the highest, if not the highest' isn't a very good phrase. If it is the style guide with the highest sales ranking at the American website amazon.com, by all means say so. Though, I myself, am unsure how to check this. jguk 08:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I checked it once but don't feel like doing it again right now. I put the info here for anyone who does want to check it. Maurreen 08:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Instruction manual redirection

Olympus implies that an instruction manual is something which provides instructions on usage for a physical invention/object, or processes, perhaps related to such an item. This is what I thought the primary definition of an instruction manual is, too. Why is a style guide considered an instruction manual? More specifically, why is a style guide considered the main definition of "instruction manual"?

[edit] Date formats - a definite concern I have

I have noted that you can use a date format like the following: 2001-01-06. This seems somewhat crazy! The date format points to January 6, 2001... however those who use mm-dd-yyyy might think that 2001-01-06 is June 1, 2001! Also, I know I don't automatically think of the month name when I see a month number.

So that I'm clear about this: my two issues are:

  1. The date format used in non-intuitive. The month name should be used. This is confusing - I always have to hover my mouse above the dd-mm field to see what URL it is pointing to.
  2. There are several English speaking countries who have different day and month formats for dates - it is confusing.

I would like to ammend the MOS to clarify that the default format should be monthname day, year.

Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestion for the illogical month, day, year format as default. Tony 05:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

ISO standard for numerical dates is yyyy-mm-dd, and we're kinda talking to the whole world here. --216.237.179.238 00:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] gpo style guide version info

I removed the version info from the US GPO style guide link entry because the website is very clear as to the versioning information. The link given will presumably always point to the latest version. So the only result of keeping the version and date here would be to obsolete the information in this article when the GPO issues a new style manual. Which would be a bad thing, IMO. --216.237.179.238 00:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic Design (Newspaper) Style Guides

I just added Graphic Design Style Guides as a subheading under specialized guides, as the article did not sufficiently discuss the great number of publication style guides that focus not on the grammar and spelling but on the design of a page and formatting of text. I left the "Specialized" section alone since graphic design style guides are not the only kind of specialized guide, but now the section is rather duplicative. I may change it at a later date if no one has any objections. Auricfuzz 23:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content

I'm not sure where this question belongs. I think a policy/guide is needed on content of various articles, if such a guide does not already exist. Let's say I'm writing an article on Hope, Arkansas. It probably makes sense (haven't checked!) to include that President Clinton was born there. That's fine, if I leave it at that. But what if I include a "little bio" revolving around him and his association with Hope, since he spent much time in Arkansas. The main article on Clinton probably includes that. Now when new information is found about Clinton, not only does his main bio have to be changed, so does the article on Hope, Arkansas, Democratic Party, etc. etc. all have to be changed just because too much was said in non-primary articles. So, shouldn't references which are covered extensively in other Wikipedia articles be limited to one sentence?

There is a reverse problem here which I won't anticipate until someone can answer me or redirect me to a governing policy.67.8.201.227 15:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide software

I say a software, "offline sandbox" should exist which should be able to help users offline write virtual articles in the wikipedia format. This can then be uploaded easily into the site.

Godcast 11:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)G.dw.n

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/y/Talk%7EStyle_guide_e384.html"