Wikipedia:Identifying and using style guides: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m →Topical academic style guides: rm. redundant; I moved this note higher up |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m ce |
||
Line 41:
When they offer general writing advice, aside from citations and field-specific stuff, the topical academic guides are mostly in line with ''Chicago'' and ''Scientific Style and Format''. There's also the ''[[Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide]]'' (''MHRA''), which is British, but tiny, being mostly concerned with citations. Virtually nothing in the Wikipedia Manual of Style on {{em|general}} writing principles comes from these works,{{efn|name=titlepreps}} though they inform several discipline-specific line items in some of MoS's sub-guidelines, and provide supporting authority for some decisions in MoS adopted from ''Chicago'' and ''Hart's'' (which are broad academic-writing guides at their core).
When working on articles, it is important to remember that [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal|Wikipedia is not a journal]] and must not be written like one, but for a general audience. As with ''Chicago'' and ''Hart's'', these style guides vary from primary through tertiary in source type. They are primary sources for their organization-specific citation styles, but often tertiary for general and field-specific writing advice, being based on the norms of journal editors as expressed in journal- or publisher-specific stylesheets.
== For Englishes around the [[anglosphere]] ==
| |||