Template talk:Styles

how about changing the colour of this to something different (but maybe close to the grey it is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.251.10 (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ASR, I'm wondering if it's a good idea to include the Wikipedia Manual of Style in this template. OTOH, it is useful, and provides some good general style advice (though it doesn't apply to all types of writing). szyslak 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "style guide" for Wikipedia and already linked via the pages on the style guides and Style guide in that article's top template. It was not originally listed properly. It is not an "international" style guide; it is simply the "Manual of Style" for Wikipedia articles. It is not appropriate in this template in the articles on style guides; in this template it violates Wikipedia's own policy not to refer to itself as a published source. The article Style guide provides further guides and links to a whole host of such style guides, many more of which could be provided in this template (but not all of them). --NYScholar 22:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this template needs a stub category. It was not in very useful format and it was misleading in an earlier version. It could be much more useful and a much better template for style guides with articles in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - thanks. - DavidWBrooks 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template automatically adds a category "Style guides". However, some of these guides belong in the category "Academic style guides", which is a subcategory of "Style Guides". So those articles get categorized in one cat and the higher level cat of that one, which is undesirable. However, without removing the template, this cannot be solved. I propose to remove the automatic categorizing from the template to solve this. --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they have extra spaces between them and the 2nd first and last entries?Curb Chain (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications is a major style guide for technical writers. I believe it's inclusion would improve the quality of this template and the discussion of style guides as a whole. I imagine the primary hesitation to including this manual would be it's industry-specific nature, but the list already contains industry-specific manuals such as The Elements of Typographic Style, AP Stylebook, Bluebook, and AMA Manual of Style.

-- 216.148.0.72 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to Microsoft's style guide as suggested by this user. -- Zfone (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the image we want illustrating a navbox of Style Manuals? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't.

In this edit, Curc replaced it with an image of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

The OED is a descriptive dictionary. It neither discusses style nor is prescriptive, and it certainly doesn't retail mere personal tastes. It has been, and still is, an enormous research project and intellectual exercise, which makes it quite unlike style guides. The use of the image here, however well intended, strikes me as rather an insult to the OED and an aggrandizement of style guides. (Not that style guides are all bad. I possess a couple myself.)

Somebody who possesses a bunch of style guides could array them on a shelf, photograph them, and upload the result. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]