Style guides generally give guidance on language use. Some style guides consider or focus on elements of graphic design, such as typography and white space. Web site style guides often focus on visual or technical aspects. ==Overview== Traditionally, a style guide (often called a style manual or stylebook) dictates what form of language should be used. These style guides are principally used by academia and publishers. In such works, style can have two meanings: * Publication conventions for markup style, such as whether book and movie titles should be written in italics; expression of dates and numbers; how references should be cited. * Literary considerations of prose style, such as best usage, common errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling; and suggestions for precision, fairness and the most forceful expression of ideas. Some modern style guides are designed for use by the general public. These tend to focus on language over presentation. Style guides don’t directly address writers’ individual style, or “voice,” although writers sometimes say style guides are too restrictive. Like language itself, many style guides change with the times, to varying degrees. For example, the Associated Press stylebook is updated every year. ==Academia and publishing== Style guides used by publishers set out rules for language use, such as for spelling, italics and punctuation. A major purpose of these style guides is consistency. They are rulebooks for writers to ensure language is used consistently. Authors are often asked or required to use a style guide in preparing their work for publication. Copy editing are charged with enforcing the style. Style guides used by universities are particularly rigorous in their preferred style for citing sources. Their use is required of scholars submitting research articles to academic journals. ==General interest== Other style guides have as their audience the general public. Some of these adopt a similar approach to style guides for publishing houses and newspapers. Others, such as ''Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition)'' report how language is used in practice in a given area, outline how phrases, punctuation and grammar are actually used. Since they are for the general public, they cannot require one form of a word or phrase to be preferred over another, though they may make recommendations, and sometimes strong recommendations at that. These guides can be used by anyone interested in writing in a standard form of a language. To give an idea of how this approach, it is useful to consider what Burchfield and observers have stated about ''Fowler's''. On one hand, Burchfield notes: 'Linguistic correctness is perhaps the dominant theme of this book'. But he also writes: 'I believe that "stark preachments" belong to an earlier age of comment on English usage'. Indeed, John Updike, writing in ''The New Yorker'' commented: 'To Burchfield, the English language is a battlefield upon which he functions as a non-combatant observer'. ==Specialized guides== Some organizations other than those above also produce style guides, either for internal or external use. For example, some communications or public relations departments of business and nonprofit organizations have guides for their publications, such as newsletters, news releases and Web sites. Also, organizations that advocate for minorities may set out what they believe to be more fair and correct language treatment. ==Examples of style guides== ===International standards=== Several basic style guides for technical and scientific communication have been defined by international standards organizations. These are often used as elements of and refined in more specialized style guides that are specific to a subject, region or organization. Some examples are: * ISO 8 — Presentation of scientific journals * ISO 18 — Contents lists of periodicals * ISO 31 — physical quantities and physical units * ISO 214 — Abstracts for publication and documentation * ISO 215 — Presentation of contributions to periodicals and other serials * ISO 690 — Bibliographic references — Content, form and structure * ISO 832 — Bibliographic references — Abbreviations of typical words * ISO 999 — Index of a publication * ISO 1086 — Title leaves of a book * ISO 2145 — Numbering of divisions and subdivisions in written documents * ISO 5966 — Presentation of scientific and technical reports * ISO 6357 — spine (book) titles on books and other publications * ISO 7144 — Presentation of thesis and similar documents ===United Kingdom=== General *R.W. Burchfield; Fowler's Modern English Usage; Clarendon Press; ISBN 0-19-861021-1 (revised 3rd edition, hardcover, 2004) (original Fowler's Modern English Usage by Henry Watson Fowler) *''The King's English'' by the Fowler brothers, Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler *''Oxford Style Manual'': The 2003 work combines ''The Oxford Guide to Style'' and ''The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors'' with the latter concentrating on common problems. *''Plain Words'' by Sir Ernest Gowers *''Usage and Abusage'' by Eric Partridge Journalism *''[http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsStyleGuide.pdf PDF version of the BBC News Style Guide]'': from the British Broadcasting Corporation *The Economist's [http://www.economist.com/research/StyleGuide/ style guide], (United Kingdom) *''[http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/0,5817,184913,00.html The Guardian Style Guide]'': from ''The Guardian'' (United Kingdom) *''[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2941,00.html The Times Style and Usage Guide]'': from ''The Times'' (United Kingdom) ===United States=== Two of the most widely used style guides in the United States are The Chicago Manual of Style and the Associated Press stylebook. Most American newspapers base their style on that of The Associated Press, but also have their own style guides for local terms and individual preferences. ''The Elements of Style'', by Strunk and White, is considered a classic. Bill Walsh, in "Lapsing into a Comma" and at his Web site, [http://www.theslot.com The Slot], addresses contemporary conundrums such as nonstandard orthography in names, as in "Yahoo!" for the Internet portal. General *''The Chicago Manual of Style'': mostly publishing conventions; ranks high in sales figures by Amazon.com *''The Elements of Style'' by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, United States *''Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words'' by Bill Bryson Books and general interest *''The Chicago Manual of Style''; University of Chicago Press; ISBN 0-226-10403-6 (15th edition, hardcover, 2003). Margaret Mahan wrote the preface, but is not credited as editor. Web sites *Janice Walker and Todd Taylor ''The Columbia Guide to Online Style''; Columbia University Press ISBN 0231107897 (paperback, 1998) and ISBN 0231107889 (hardback, 1998) Newspapers *''Associated Press Stylebook'': self-indexed; the foremost guide to newspaper style in the United States. *''The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, revised edition. Allan M. Siegal and William G. Connolly. New York: Times Books, 1999. ISBN 0812963881. Self-indexed. *Wall Street Journal style guide ====Academic==== *''ACS Style Guide'': style for scientific papers published in journals of the American Chemical Society *''American Medical Association Manual of Style'': style for scientific papers published in journals of the American Medical Association *''APA style'': academic style for the social sciences by the American Psychological Association *''American Sociological Association Style Guide'': academic style for the social sciences by the American Sociological Association *''Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers'': style for scientific papers published by the Council of Science Editors, a group formerly known as the Council of Biology Editors *''[http://image.thelancet.com/lancet/extra/Diskettes.pdf The Lancet: Formatting guidelines for electronic submission of revised manuscripts]'' Formatting requirements for The Lancet; academic styl for scietific paper and other articles for submission. *''MHRA Style Guide'': academic style for the arts and humanities published by the Modern Humanities Research Association; available for free download (see article); based in the United Kingdom *''The MLA style manual'': academic style for the arts and humanities by the Modern Language Association of America *"Turabian": popular name for a widely used academic style guide based on the ''The Chicago Manual of Style'' *''Words into Type'': publishing conventions, less scholarly, more accessible than the ''Chicago Manual'' ====Computer Industry (Software and Hardware)==== *''Read Me First! A Style Guide for the Computer Industry''; Sun Technical Publications/Prentice Hall; ISBN 0-131-42899-3 (2nd edition, 2003). Provides comprehensive guidelines for documenting computer products, from writing about web sites to legal guidelines, from writing for an international audience, to developing a documentation department. Available for purchase on [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0131428993/qid=1115814288/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9961291-4569761?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Amazon]. *''Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications''; Microsoft Press; ISBN 0-735-61746-5 (3rd Bk&CD edition, 2003). Provides a style standard for technical documentation, including: use of terminology; conventions, procedure, and design treatments; and punctuation and grammar usage. Available for purchase on [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735617465/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/102-9961291-4569761?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Amazon]. For a summary and comparison of academic style guides, see [http://www.calstatela.edu/library/styleman.htm Style Manuals and Writing Guides] by the UCLA University Library. ==See also== *The Elements of Style *English writing style *Diction *List of English words with disputed usage *Grammar from a linguistic perspective. *House style *Prescription and description *Punctuation *Spelling *Wikipedia:Manual of Style ==External links== Style guides for American English: *[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/index.html Government Printing Office Style Manual] *[http://exlibris.memphis.edu/instr/style.htm The University of Memphis list of Style Manuals & Guides] *[http://theslot.com/ The Slot], by Bill Walsh *[http://www.bartleby.com/usage/ Bartleby Searchable Usage Guides] Style guide for Australian English: *[http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/print/style.html Queensland government style guide] Style guides for British English: *The Economist's [http://www.economist.com/research/StyleGuide/ style guide] *The Guardian's [http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide style guide] *The Times's [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2941,00.html style guide] *European Union [http://europa.eu.int/comm/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf English style guide] Style guide for Canadian English: *[http://www.yorku.ca/ycom/style/index.html York University Style Guide] (based on the Canadian Press Stylebook) Style guides for international organizations *[http://europa.eu.int/comm/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf European Union English Style Guide] (based on British English) *[http://www.itu.int/sg-conf/general/styleguide.doc International Telecommunications Union English-language style guide], Microsoft Word document *[http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/commsguide/html/Extras/Style%20appendix.pdf International Red Cross English Style Guide] Miscellaneous: *[http://www.ronreason.com/personal/style.html Design style guide tips], by Ron Reason, United States *[http://www.copydesk.org/2002conference/style.htm Stylebook advice]: Tips on creating, revising and using style guides; report from a conference session by the American Copy Editors Society *[http://www.ibiblio.org/copyed/hughespro.html Style Matters: What the AP Isn't Telling You], research on style guides by Beth Hughes, United States *[http://www.webstyleguide.com/ Web style guide], by Patrick J. Lynch and Sarah Horton, United States Bibliography Style guides Technical communication
==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 language. Instead of ''errors'' or ''mistakes'', they talk about ''dudas'' ("doubts)), which is much more humane. User:Ortolan88 18:21 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC) ==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? --User: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... :-/ ... User:Elf | User talk:Elf 17:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==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, User: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-- User:Elf | User talk:Elf 17:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Wikipedia:Manual of Style == (User: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. User:Maurreen 12:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==Rewrite problems== User:Jongarrettuk, 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. # Concerning the supposed descriptive nature of style guides: What do you base that on? # The part about "Correct English" might be better in an article about grammar or the English language. # In the links and references section, you made it less precise by removing people’s initials. User:Maurreen 04:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) :To respond to your comments in the order in which you raise them: #''Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third Edition)'' is a descriptive style guide. #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. #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.User:Jongarrettuk 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? User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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." User:63.165.209.142 06:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) User:Maurreen :::The above comments were from me. I had computer trouble and couldn't stay logged on. User: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)? User:Jongarrettuk 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.'" User: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.'' :User:Jongarrettuk 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. User:Maurreen 15:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) =="Descriptive" style guides== # Can you cite a source? Does anyone other than you say that style guides are not prescriptive by definition? # I think we differ on the meaning of "descriptive." Do you agree with this, from the description and prescription article? :::::'For example, a descriptive linguistics (descriptivist) working in English language 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.' User: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. User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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"? User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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. User: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? User:Maurreen 20:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) To move this along, I suggest a survey. Would you like to draft the question? User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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 Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. 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. User: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? User:Jongarrettuk 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." User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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? User:Maurreen 18:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) #A survey #Ask Jallan to come to this page and help us. #Mediation :First I'd like to understand your position. Perhaps if you could answer these: :#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.) :#Are you saying there cannot be a descriptive style guide (by definition)? :#Are you saying that whilst most style guides are prescriptive, some may be less than prescriptive but without being purely descriptive either? :#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? User:Jongarrettuk 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. User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 19:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) ===Comments copied from Talk:Wikipedia:Manual of Style=== ::What would be the point of a descriptive style guide? User:Hyacinth 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Or, the question is: Are style guides prescriptive by definition? user: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). User: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. [http://www.writersbookcase.com/product.asp?PID=166]. Birchfield's rewrite of Fowler into a far less prescriptive (and thereforE into a descriptive) form was not universally popular. [http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198610211/qid=1098775174/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-1409230-8513445] 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. User:Jongarrettuk 07:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==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. User:63.165.209.142 06:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Me again, or still. User:Maurreen 04:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==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 Wikipedia:No 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. User:Stevenj 21:02, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) :Yes, thank you, that is what I have been trying to say. User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Style_guide&oldid=6989798 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. User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 22:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) ===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.) User:Maurreen 22:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==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. User: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). User:Jongarrettuk 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. User:Maurreen 22:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==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. User:Maurreen 16:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==Chicago manual== This was deleted: "The Chicago manual has one of the highest, if not the highest, sales ranking at Amazon.com." User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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. User:Maurreen 08:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Instruction manual redirection == [http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/ 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"?
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Manual of Style
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Style_guide:
Style-guideline
Style_guide
Style_guide
Style_guide
Style_guides
Style_guides
Style guide
Style guides generally give guidance on language use. Some style guides consider or focus on elements of graphic design, such as typography and white space. Web site style guides often focus on visual or technical aspects. ==Overview== Traditionally, a style guide (often called a style manual or stylebook) dictates what form of language should be used. These style guides are principally used by academia and publishers. In such works, style can have two meanings: * Publication conventions for markup style, such as whether book and movie titles should be written in italics; expression of dates and numbers; how references should be cited. * Literary considerations of prose style, such as best usage, common errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling; and suggestions for precision, fairness and the most forceful expression of ideas. Some modern style guides are designed for use by the general public. These tend to focus on language over presentation. Style guides don’t directly address writers’ individual style, or “voice,” although writers sometimes say style guides are too restrictive. Like language itself, many style guides change with the times, to varying degrees. For example, the Associated Press stylebook is updated every year. ==Academia and publishing== Style guides used by publishers set out rules for language use, such as for spelling, italics and punctuation. A major purpose of these style guides is consistency. They are rulebooks for writers to ensure language is used consistently. Authors are often asked or required to use a style guide in preparing their work for publication. Copy editing are charged with enforcing the style. Style guides used by universities are particularly rigorous in their preferred style for citing sources. Their use is required of scholars submitting research articles to academic journals. ==General interest== Other style guides have as their audience the general public. Some of these adopt a similar approach to style guides for publishing houses and newspapers. Others, such as ''Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition)'' report how language is used in practice in a given area, outline how phrases, punctuation and grammar are actually used. Since they are for the general public, they cannot require one form of a word or phrase to be preferred over another, though they may make recommendations, and sometimes strong recommendations at that. These guides can be used by anyone interested in writing in a standard form of a language. To give an idea of how this approach, it is useful to consider what Burchfield and observers have stated about ''Fowler's''. On one hand, Burchfield notes: 'Linguistic correctness is perhaps the dominant theme of this book'. But he also writes: 'I believe that "stark preachments" belong to an earlier age of comment on English usage'. Indeed, John Updike, writing in ''The New Yorker'' commented: 'To Burchfield, the English language is a battlefield upon which he functions as a non-combatant observer'. ==Specialized guides== Some organizations other than those above also produce style guides, either for internal or external use. For example, some communications or public relations departments of business and nonprofit organizations have guides for their publications, such as newsletters, news releases and Web sites. Also, organizations that advocate for minorities may set out what they believe to be more fair and correct language treatment. ==Examples of style guides== ===International standards=== Several basic style guides for technical and scientific communication have been defined by international standards organizations. These are often used as elements of and refined in more specialized style guides that are specific to a subject, region or organization. Some examples are: * ISO 8 — Presentation of scientific journals * ISO 18 — Contents lists of periodicals * ISO 31 — physical quantities and physical units * ISO 214 — Abstracts for publication and documentation * ISO 215 — Presentation of contributions to periodicals and other serials * ISO 690 — Bibliographic references — Content, form and structure * ISO 832 — Bibliographic references — Abbreviations of typical words * ISO 999 — Index of a publication * ISO 1086 — Title leaves of a book * ISO 2145 — Numbering of divisions and subdivisions in written documents * ISO 5966 — Presentation of scientific and technical reports * ISO 6357 — spine (book) titles on books and other publications * ISO 7144 — Presentation of thesis and similar documents ===United Kingdom=== General *R.W. Burchfield; Fowler's Modern English Usage; Clarendon Press; ISBN 0-19-861021-1 (revised 3rd edition, hardcover, 2004) (original Fowler's Modern English Usage by Henry Watson Fowler) *''The King's English'' by the Fowler brothers, Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler *''Oxford Style Manual'': The 2003 work combines ''The Oxford Guide to Style'' and ''The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors'' with the latter concentrating on common problems. *''Plain Words'' by Sir Ernest Gowers *''Usage and Abusage'' by Eric Partridge Journalism *''[http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsStyleGuide.pdf PDF version of the BBC News Style Guide]'': from the British Broadcasting Corporation *The Economist's [http://www.economist.com/research/StyleGuide/ style guide], (United Kingdom) *''[http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/0,5817,184913,00.html The Guardian Style Guide]'': from ''The Guardian'' (United Kingdom) *''[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2941,00.html The Times Style and Usage Guide]'': from ''The Times'' (United Kingdom) ===United States=== Two of the most widely used style guides in the United States are The Chicago Manual of Style and the Associated Press stylebook. Most American newspapers base their style on that of The Associated Press, but also have their own style guides for local terms and individual preferences. ''The Elements of Style'', by Strunk and White, is considered a classic. Bill Walsh, in "Lapsing into a Comma" and at his Web site, [http://www.theslot.com The Slot], addresses contemporary conundrums such as nonstandard orthography in names, as in "Yahoo!" for the Internet portal. General *''The Chicago Manual of Style'': mostly publishing conventions; ranks high in sales figures by Amazon.com *''The Elements of Style'' by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, United States *''Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words'' by Bill Bryson Books and general interest *''The Chicago Manual of Style''; University of Chicago Press; ISBN 0-226-10403-6 (15th edition, hardcover, 2003). Margaret Mahan wrote the preface, but is not credited as editor. Web sites *Janice Walker and Todd Taylor ''The Columbia Guide to Online Style''; Columbia University Press ISBN 0231107897 (paperback, 1998) and ISBN 0231107889 (hardback, 1998) Newspapers *''Associated Press Stylebook'': self-indexed; the foremost guide to newspaper style in the United States. *''The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, revised edition. Allan M. Siegal and William G. Connolly. New York: Times Books, 1999. ISBN 0812963881. Self-indexed. *Wall Street Journal style guide ====Academic==== *''ACS Style Guide'': style for scientific papers published in journals of the American Chemical Society *''American Medical Association Manual of Style'': style for scientific papers published in journals of the American Medical Association *''APA style'': academic style for the social sciences by the American Psychological Association *''American Sociological Association Style Guide'': academic style for the social sciences by the American Sociological Association *''Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers'': style for scientific papers published by the Council of Science Editors, a group formerly known as the Council of Biology Editors *''[http://image.thelancet.com/lancet/extra/Diskettes.pdf The Lancet: Formatting guidelines for electronic submission of revised manuscripts]'' Formatting requirements for The Lancet; academic styl for scietific paper and other articles for submission. *''MHRA Style Guide'': academic style for the arts and humanities published by the Modern Humanities Research Association; available for free download (see article); based in the United Kingdom *''The MLA style manual'': academic style for the arts and humanities by the Modern Language Association of America *"Turabian": popular name for a widely used academic style guide based on the ''The Chicago Manual of Style'' *''Words into Type'': publishing conventions, less scholarly, more accessible than the ''Chicago Manual'' ====Computer Industry (Software and Hardware)==== *''Read Me First! A Style Guide for the Computer Industry''; Sun Technical Publications/Prentice Hall; ISBN 0-131-42899-3 (2nd edition, 2003). Provides comprehensive guidelines for documenting computer products, from writing about web sites to legal guidelines, from writing for an international audience, to developing a documentation department. Available for purchase on [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0131428993/qid=1115814288/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9961291-4569761?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Amazon]. *''Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications''; Microsoft Press; ISBN 0-735-61746-5 (3rd Bk&CD edition, 2003). Provides a style standard for technical documentation, including: use of terminology; conventions, procedure, and design treatments; and punctuation and grammar usage. Available for purchase on [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735617465/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/102-9961291-4569761?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Amazon]. For a summary and comparison of academic style guides, see [http://www.calstatela.edu/library/styleman.htm Style Manuals and Writing Guides] by the UCLA University Library. ==See also== *The Elements of Style *English writing style *Diction *List of English words with disputed usage *Grammar from a linguistic perspective. *House style *Prescription and description *Punctuation *Spelling *Wikipedia:Manual of Style ==External links== Style guides for American English: *[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/index.html Government Printing Office Style Manual] *[http://exlibris.memphis.edu/instr/style.htm The University of Memphis list of Style Manuals & Guides] *[http://theslot.com/ The Slot], by Bill Walsh *[http://www.bartleby.com/usage/ Bartleby Searchable Usage Guides] Style guide for Australian English: *[http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/print/style.html Queensland government style guide] Style guides for British English: *The Economist's [http://www.economist.com/research/StyleGuide/ style guide] *The Guardian's [http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide style guide] *The Times's [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2941,00.html style guide] *European Union [http://europa.eu.int/comm/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf English style guide] Style guide for Canadian English: *[http://www.yorku.ca/ycom/style/index.html York University Style Guide] (based on the Canadian Press Stylebook) Style guides for international organizations *[http://europa.eu.int/comm/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf European Union English Style Guide] (based on British English) *[http://www.itu.int/sg-conf/general/styleguide.doc International Telecommunications Union English-language style guide], Microsoft Word document *[http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/commsguide/html/Extras/Style%20appendix.pdf International Red Cross English Style Guide] Miscellaneous: *[http://www.ronreason.com/personal/style.html Design style guide tips], by Ron Reason, United States *[http://www.copydesk.org/2002conference/style.htm Stylebook advice]: Tips on creating, revising and using style guides; report from a conference session by the American Copy Editors Society *[http://www.ibiblio.org/copyed/hughespro.html Style Matters: What the AP Isn't Telling You], research on style guides by Beth Hughes, United States *[http://www.webstyleguide.com/ Web style guide], by Patrick J. Lynch and Sarah Horton, United States Bibliography Style guides Technical communication
Style guide
==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 language. Instead of ''errors'' or ''mistakes'', they talk about ''dudas'' ("doubts)), which is much more humane. User:Ortolan88 18:21 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC) ==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? --User: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... :-/ ... User:Elf | User talk:Elf 17:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==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, User: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-- User:Elf | User talk:Elf 17:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Wikipedia:Manual of Style == (User: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. User:Maurreen 12:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==Rewrite problems== User:Jongarrettuk, 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. # Concerning the supposed descriptive nature of style guides: What do you base that on? # The part about "Correct English" might be better in an article about grammar or the English language. # In the links and references section, you made it less precise by removing people’s initials. User:Maurreen 04:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) :To respond to your comments in the order in which you raise them: #''Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third Edition)'' is a descriptive style guide. #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. #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.User:Jongarrettuk 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? User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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." User:63.165.209.142 06:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) User:Maurreen :::The above comments were from me. I had computer trouble and couldn't stay logged on. User: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)? User:Jongarrettuk 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.'" User: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.'' :User:Jongarrettuk 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. User:Maurreen 15:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) =="Descriptive" style guides== # Can you cite a source? Does anyone other than you say that style guides are not prescriptive by definition? # I think we differ on the meaning of "descriptive." Do you agree with this, from the description and prescription article? :::::'For example, a descriptive linguistics (descriptivist) working in English language 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.' User: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. User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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"? User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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. User: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? User:Maurreen 20:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) To move this along, I suggest a survey. Would you like to draft the question? User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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 Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. 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. User: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? User:Jongarrettuk 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." User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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? User:Maurreen 18:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) #A survey #Ask Jallan to come to this page and help us. #Mediation :First I'd like to understand your position. Perhaps if you could answer these: :#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.) :#Are you saying there cannot be a descriptive style guide (by definition)? :#Are you saying that whilst most style guides are prescriptive, some may be less than prescriptive but without being purely descriptive either? :#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? User:Jongarrettuk 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. User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 19:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) ===Comments copied from Talk:Wikipedia:Manual of Style=== ::What would be the point of a descriptive style guide? User:Hyacinth 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Or, the question is: Are style guides prescriptive by definition? user: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). User: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. [http://www.writersbookcase.com/product.asp?PID=166]. Birchfield's rewrite of Fowler into a far less prescriptive (and thereforE into a descriptive) form was not universally popular. [http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198610211/qid=1098775174/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-1409230-8513445] 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. User:Jongarrettuk 07:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==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. User:63.165.209.142 06:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Me again, or still. User:Maurreen 04:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==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 Wikipedia:No 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. User:Stevenj 21:02, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) :Yes, thank you, that is what I have been trying to say. User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Style_guide&oldid=6989798 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. User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 22:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) ===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.) User:Maurreen 22:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==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. User: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). User:Jongarrettuk 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. User:Maurreen 22:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==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. User:Maurreen 16:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==Chicago manual== This was deleted: "The Chicago manual has one of the highest, if not the highest, sales ranking at Amazon.com." User: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. User:Jongarrettuk 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. User:Maurreen 08:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Instruction manual redirection == [http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/ 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"?
Style guide
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Manual of Style
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
S
SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |Words begining with Style_guide:
Style-guideline
Style_guide
Style_guide
Style_guide
Style_guides
Style_guides
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
