Talk:Style guide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For discussion of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Style guide article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Please note before contributing to this Talk page

This is the page for discussion of the Wikipedia article Style guide, which covers the subject of style guides in general. Discussion of Wikipedia's own style guide does not belong here, but in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Barnabypage 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[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

[edit] See also

What is the expected content of a "see also" section of an article ? --Lysytalk 20:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate links

We seem to have got two sets of links to Style Guides, one in the body and one as External Links: I updated the link to the Times guide y'day but didn't see that there was another copy. Should we rationalise this somehow? PamD 06:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split Article?

Would anyone here be opposed to splitting this article in two? I feel that there should be separate articles for guides that focus on citation style and document format (Chicago Manual of Style, MLA, APA, etc) and those that focus on language usage issues and writing style (Fowler's, Garner's, The Economist Style Guide, Strunk and White, etc). Fixer1234 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that this article should be split at this time. Perhaps a separate article can be created first on style usage guides, but before one sees what it looks like, it is not wise to remove the information about such "style guides" from this article. The article is still on "style guides". --NYScholar 06:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to split this article up. There are already other articles about the style guides mentioned above. Also, I'm not sure Wikipedia articles should contain any discussion of language usage issues, unless properly cited (otherwise it would constitute "original research", something that's taboo on Wikipedia). Fuzzform (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Over the past couple of days, I have done some editing of this article, cleaning up inconsistencies, deleting self-published or otherwise non-authoritative sources being listed as external links in the body of the article; moving external links from the body of the article to the External links section, and I added a pertinent template instead of a non-pertinent image. --NYScholar 06:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit dispute for college articles

I have been engage in an edit dispute for college articles. The dispute is about rather or not athletic logos are a necessity in the infobox of college articles. The infobox states that the secondary logo at the bottom can be for athletic logos, college image or emblem. The other editors insist on having athletic logos in the infobox. I have maintained that a secondary can be the college emblem and that the athletics logo is more appropriate in the athletics section. There seems to be a bias toward athletics in the disputing editor's edits. Therjerm has seemed to have this bias. absolon as well. I have reviewed many college articles on wiki, especially ones that wikiproject universities has deemed good articles. All of them do not have athletic logos in the infobox. What is the rule in this matter? thanks Scotcra1 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place if you're seeking to discuss an edit dispute. This talk page is for the article Style guide. You might try Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration instead. Fuzzform (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This page should be moved and redirected

to Style GuidesThisMunkey (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The naming convention on Wikipedia is to use the singular (rather than plural) form of a word when naming articles. For example, an article about mammals in general (i.e., not about a specific mammal) would be titled "Mammal", not "Mammals". The former title implies a definition/description - which is what an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, provides. The latter title implies a list, which in this example, would actually be a page with the title "List of mammals" (many such lists exist). Similarly, there might be a page titled "List of style guides" [I'm not sure if such a page exists]. This article is a general description of what a style guide is - it is not a list of style guides (although it mentions many of them). As for redirects [I just created one to address your comment, by the way], in the above example, searching for "mammals" redirects you to "Mammal", not "List of mammals". I hope this clarifies the issue you brought up. You might also peruse the Manual of Style, although I personally only consult it when there is a specific question about editing to be answered (it makes for a rather dull read, otherwise). Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The nature of things mammalian in human understanding is that, either, mammals were a breed of a single parent or gene that has stood a test of time easy to understand but beyond a human comprehension, or, that the mammal is an entity created by a perfect being in a perfect manner. This precedent is remarkable earning "The Mammal" a title as such in an encyclopaediac work (such is acceptable and good grammar as opposed to possiblly acceptable and not grammatical at all. Example :- The Mammal versus A Mammal. Mammal alone is not a subject. There is no mammal alone). It has a title as a subject or else it is described as a plural as that is its nature. An article about "A Mammal" or "The Mammal". That makes the sense wether you agree or disagree. It is not a matter of style choice, it is a grammatical correction. I would like to see a good arguement why this specific grammar is innapropriate rather than an explaination of "thats just the way we do it".
  • The article is about Style Guides not a method of style guidance and if it is about a particular style guidance it should claim as much. "Style guide of ...", "Particular style guide". ThisMunkey (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Style guides are artistic creations not warm blooded creatures with hair and teats. The title is very dictator-ish. Not open to evolution. The finished article. Is this the case? Are style guides not works in progress and the style guide undefined? Are style guides not individual in their topics and opinions or are they all a branch of the tree "Style Guide". Where is the definitive one or what is it called? Style guide? I believe some things are suited to a plural and likewise non-plural. Who or what is the style guide suited to applying a "non plural" consensus out of context? Is it ridiculous to debate this? I dont really know anything of the professional style guide. Is there a meaning beyond style and guide? Style Guidance?
ThisMunkey (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style Guidance

What is the bet that title pursues a better article?
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


You're going off on tangents
    • Your tangent friend.

that have nothing to do with your original concern. This is not a forum to debate semantics - it is a discussion page about what a "style guide" is. In any case, I'll analyze your questions and comments.

  • "things mammalian" - You mean, mammals? What else is mammalian other than mammals? Or are you speaking of 'traits' of mammals?
    • You obviously ignored the purpose of my paragraph. You brought the mammals up.
  • "...either, mammals were a breed of a single parent or gene that has stood a test of time easy to understand but beyond a human comprehension..." - Where did you come up with the idea that mammals are a "breed of a single parent or gene"? They might have a common ancestor
    • It's funny you wouldn't understand my "single parent or gene" and would "common ancestor" in the same sentence. Do you know what you are talking about?

(all life has a common origin),

    • Gets worse.

but that's not the issue here.

    • Your issue, mate. You brought up the use of "Mammal" as a title to defend your article. Now you are saying it is ridiculous. I am curious now about deaf ears.

The issue you're addressing is the grammar of the titles of Wikipedia's articles. Stick to the issue at hand.

  • "...or, that the mammal is an entity created by a perfect being in a perfect manner." - You mean, created by God or some supernatural force? That is addressed in a different article: Creationism. Mammals are typically investigated by scientists, not theologians.
    • You provided the example (mammal). I elaborated. You should be prepared for objectivity. Any reference to the innapropriate example of "mammal" may be directed at you, Fuzzform.
  • "This precedent is remarkable earning "The Mammal" a title as such in an encyclopaediac work (such is acceptable and good grammar as opposed to possiblly acceptable and not grammatical at all. Example - The Mammal versus A Mammal. Mammal alone is not a subject. There is no mammal alone)." - If you looked up 'the horse' in a dictionary, what would you expect to find? The ultimate example of a horse? How about 'a horse'? Would you expect to find information about some random horse? The point is that entries/articles in dictionaries/encyclopedias are about overall topics, and DO NOT use articles such as 'a'/'an' or 'the'. Using articles before titles is absurd and confusing. Articles are for use in full sentences, not entries or definitions. (Also, don't confuse my use of the word article, in the grammatical sense, with the word article in the sense of an entry in an encyclopedia.)
    • This entire piece falls between making no sense and claiming my opinion that "the" before "mammal" doesnt relate to an article "in an encyclopedia". You are merely saying that you have no opinion and are not open to discussion (even on your own example I may add).
  • "It has a title as a subject or else it is described as a plural as that is its nature." - Not in encyclopedias.
    • We wont have your sort in this pub you are saying. Why dont you stick to discussing what is suitable and why? Have you got a traditiional ego/agenda? Yes.
  • "An article about 'A Mammal' or 'The Mammal'. That makes the sense wether you agree or disagree. It is not a matter of style choice, it is a grammatical correction. I would like to see a good arguement why this specific grammar is innapropriate rather than an explaination of 'thats just the way we do it'. - I believe I've addressed that by this point. Using articles of speech is nonsensical because of what they imply. Articles in encyclopedias are about subjects only. The is no place for articles of speech in any title.
    • Belive what you like. All you have claimed here is that correcting the title has nothing to do with an article. IE: 'that's just the way we do it.' You are not open to discussion on any grounds. Why did you write such a lengthy response?
  • "The article is about Style Guides not a method of style guidance and if it is about a particular style guidance it should claim as much. 'Style guide of ...', 'Particular style guide'. - If you're looking for 'style guidance', try the English (or writing) department at your local university. The article title 'style guide' is about the concept of a style guide; as I have said, it is not about a specific style guide. There are other pages that describe individual style guides. Encyclopedias are similar to dictionaries in that their entries do not have vague names that employ articles of speech (the, a, an, etc.). 'The Mammals' sounds like a book about mammals; 'A Mammal' would be referring to a specific mammal; 'mammals' sounds like a section in a biology textbook. This article is about the concept of 'mammal'. (I purposely left out the article of speech here.)
    • Again "Encyclopedias are...". I am saying "this should...". You have no interest. The article "Style Guidance" has no place in an encyclopedia and should refer to an "English writing department"? You really are ridiculous. Why dont you waste all this rubbish addressing the idea? If you think you have a strong argument you will be wide open to discussion. I fail to see your point in "Mammal" versus "The Mammal". Only "go see the English department". Thanks.
  • "Style guides are artistic creations" - Artistic? I'd like to see some evidence of that. They're systems to guide one's style of writing. Hardly art.
    • Well you hardly understand the word style then. Again you might learn something from the english department.
  • "The title is very dictator-ish. Not open to evolution. The finished article. Is this the case? Are style guides not works in progress and the style guide undefined? Are style guides not individual in their topics and opinions or are they all a branch of the tree 'Style Guide'." - They are all branches of the conceptual tree known as 'style guide'. Again, I will point out that this page is not about a specific style guide, but the concept of 'style guide'.
    • The article has very little to do with the concept. The word "concept" does not appear on the page at all. I dont know how this idea offends you but it certainly has. I would like to see very much why I might be wrong and not "the mammal article doesnt do it".
  • "Where is the definitive one or what is it called? Style guide?" - There is no definitive style guide. All style guides fall under the umbrella term 'style guide'.
    • Wow. The only straight answer comes to my sarcastic challenge. You really have ignored me in a large part.
  • "I believe some things are suited to a plural and likewise non-plural. Who or what is the style guide suited to applying a 'non plural' consensus out of context? Is it ridiculous to debate this? I dont really know anything of the professional style guide. Is there a meaning beyond style and guide? Style Guidance?" - The plural form would not imply the overall concept. It would be a list, as I stated before. There are always meanings in English beyond the one being used in a particular context (well, almost always). This is a very specific context, and the meanings of 'style' and 'guide' should be clear from the article (not 'article of speech', 'encyclopedia article' - see? context.). I addressed "style guidance" above. And yes, this is an absurd 'debate', if you want to call it that. Just follow the naming conventions of Wikipedia - there is no need to rebel. The idea is to make it easy for people to find articles in the encyclopedia, and for those articles to be consistently named. Perhaps if the first encyclopedia ever written used the system you propose, you'd be arguing against using articles of speech? Let me end this by saying that this not the proper place to split hairs over grammatical and semantic issues.
    • You didnt "address Style Guidance" at all. You claim this debate "is absurd". You say that this is "not the proper place" to discuss it. You claim "there is no need to rebel". "Using articles of speech"? I'd ask you to explain your idea but you seem to be preoccupied with some rebellion and you have ruined my new section asking "Would Style Guidance pursue a better article?". Why didnt you just describe your lack of interest in the matter? You've destroyed it without adding anything useful at all.
    • ThisMunkey (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzform (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right; I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. Clearly neither one of us understands what the other is saying/trying to prove. I initially thought I could, perhaps, convey the reasons behind the lack of articles of speech in page titles. I'm not in the least bit offended by any of your comments, although I do apologize if I've offended you with any of my comments. I think it would be best for both of us to avoid using ad hominem arguments (or making personal attacks). You're entitled to your opinions, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is based on consensus. It is extremely unlikely that the naming conventions (i.e., "corrections") you are proposing will be used.
Also, this is not my article, it's a Wikipedia article. Again, I apologize for any offense I may have caused, but please don't insult my intelligence or accuse me of having an ego problem. I'm just here to edit articles, and "style guide" isn't one that I often work on. Lastly, a couple things: Life doesn't necessarily have a single common origin. ...and... I never said you weren't welcome here; on the contrary, I encourage you to be a constructive editor of Wikipedia.
Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Be bold-There are no rules..."
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy and paste

The ramblings above are bad enough but with most of them being unsigned, they become unusable. "Be bold-There are no rules...". No ThisMunkey, there are rules and you violated several of them when you created Style Guidance:

  • we do not change titles by copy&paste, we use a move command
  • we do not put a capital 'G' on 'guidance'
  • if we generate double redirects, we fix them.

In my view the correct title is style guide. Do not attempt to change the title until a clear consensus for doing so appears here. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ignore all rules

Every entry I made on that page was signed ~ ~ ~ ~ Every entry there was designed for patience and time (not all that much time, genuine reflection). Only one answer appeared which is less than said of my recent entries on the use of fuck and the depictions on the sexual intercourse page. You didnt answer a single thing. You just said "I think...". There fore you are. The main articles are in place (on wikipedia). At most left are obscure articles, tidying and format topics (also protective projects). If the encyclopedia is not set out in a thouroughly educative manner it will be degenerate as an encyclopedia. Promote that if you want. Who cares? Huh. Boo. There should be an archived debate on convention or an ongoing one but I have found several unanswered debates. Anything you grow might be nurtured. Its a good topic whatever your opinion/convention you adhere to. Would appreciate an opinion on Style Guide v Style Guidance.
ThisMunkey (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, yes every entry was signed and whilst interleaving comments and responses was a good idea, you could have done a lot more work on formatting to make it clear who was saying what. But since most of it was irrelevant to this article, it did not matter. Please Munkey, try and be a little more brief in your comments and stick to the point.
"Would appreciate an opinion on Style Guide v Style Guidance." The 'g' should not be capitalised in either title. *1* This article is clearly about style guides - distinct documents. If you think there is justification for a separate article on style guidance, I suggest you create it at user:ThisMunkey/sandbox and request here that it be considered for inclusion in the article namespace. In the mean time, the best thing for style guidance is for it to be redirect. *1* -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is directly concerned in this idea. I think you are trying to tell me that pointing out the broader application of it (idea) is not suitable disscussion material. Your mean time is nothing but that. You didnt give any opinion A versus B. All you said was where to use a capital letter. That has no relation to the discussion. I believe that as an administrator you have no wish to interject before your peers and that precludes the length of my wording (which I have shortened several largely). Anyhow, "Would appreciate an opinion on Style guide v Style guidance."
ThisMunkey (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • My "opinion on Style guide v Style guidance" is contained between two *1* marks above. Did you read it? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"This article is clearly about style guides - distinct documents." - Well that would nominate it for a move to List of Style guides. ?
ThisMunkey (talk)
This article as is would suit a list but I vote that it is well written and of better quality than the header of a list, rather, is the footnote to an article on a substantial subject. The most concise heading preceding such a short list I have seen on the wiki (it does go on quite a bit in details before mentioning individual documents, in fact a concise description of a wide range of style guide types and possibility far beyond the list and a list of mammailia, for instance, would be a List of Mammals, stop.). The history hasnt appeared on the article as yet although "Style guidance" would require it for completion. I still vote it is the form of a good article merely incomplete and deserves Template:This article requires box at top. Final proof that the title for this article ultimately is "Style guidance" (a good article) and contains a list of style guide(s) for illustration:- almost all of the references have "style guide(s)" in their titles and the singular (style guide) is ultimately peculiar to a specific institution in every case.

  • To list a reference whilst simultaneously discrediting its view/consensus/format is only suitable for discrediting or highlighting a difference, not trustworthy reference.

I would vote in good faith that the references are trustworthy. Therefore to correct in compliance with policy also (ie plural out) :- "Style guidance" (with suitable box: WP:This Article Requires completion vis a vee Detailed History Of Style Guidance).
ThisMunkey (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)