Talk:AP Stylebook

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Writing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sentence removed

"*Style on questions such as whether to convert foreign times to local times (generally not) and when to put "Dr." in front of a person's name (only for certain medical titles, although it may be used if the subject matter is relevant to the topic). " I removed this sentence, which I didn't think was very clear, and replaced it with what I think is a more inclusive summary of what the book contains. I don't think the specific examples were all that useful as they were, but I don't have the book on hand to find any better ones. --Conspire 00:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there appear to be 378 pages in my 2004 ed (39th ed June 2004)

Annual?

I think there needs to be a mention of how frequently the guide is updated. Jeff Silvers 05:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book is updated annually, usually in June - that's in the introduction. - DavidWBrooks 10:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Haha. Wow. I'm blind. Thanks. Jeff Silvers 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Styleguide / Stylebook ?

I'll admit that I haven't spent an extensive period of time looking for a Wikipedian Styleguide available to the Wikipedians, but as of 22 August, 2006, I haven't seen anything yet.

I wanted to start a real discussion and debate with the editors and contributors to the articles of the English Wikipedia. I've seen a lot of inconsistencies in several areas, such as numbering schemes (one, two, ..., ten, eleven, twelve/twelfth, thirteen/thirteenth, one hundred, nineteen hundred fifty-six, etc). A more modern and generally accepted numbering scheme (see AP, New York Times style guides) is to spell out the numbers 0-9 as such (zero, one, two, three, four, through nine) and spell out numbers 10+ as 10, 11, 12, 13, etc).

The AP and NYT styles are not copyrighted, but more a guide to being consistent in news pieces crossing the wires, but is also accepted in most college-level English courses for papers written for college classes. This is otherwise known as the MLA standards.

If this project has already begun, I'd love to participate since I'm a news desk editor and would like to bring even more consistency to the wikipedia articles. If this project has not begun or is in its infant stages, I am very anxious to start working with the rest of the team.

I look forward to reading about everyone's thoughts or suggestions on where this topic may be better seen and discussed at.

Best regards, Bsheppard 09:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency gets locked in regardless of whether it makes sense (e.g., AP's lack of serial commas) yet the power of wikipedia is that it's constantly changing. So having an official stylebook for wikipedia would harm its very core. Now, having said that, there are lots of styles for lots of things on wikipedia - it's just that people ignore them. - DavidWBrooks 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be for it. As a copy editor/reporter myself, I look at some of this stuff on Wikipedia and go yuck. But Wikipedia's anyone can edit policy makes quality control pointless and futile. My two cents--FidesetRatio 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

US vs. British vs. other-users-of-English style differences would really, really complicate such an effort.

By the way, you are aware of [[1]] the Wikipedia Manual of Style, aren't you? It's semi-comprehensive and only occasionally self-inconsistent! - DavidWBrooks 17:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, no regional english style (i.e. US vs British) is superior to another on wikipedia. Moreover, in response to FidesetRatio, I disagree that quality control on wikipedia is useless. ARticles undergo a rather rigorous quality control process ultimately leading to peer review and featured status. Maintaining the quality of articles is challenging and often depends on the concerted efforts of a core group of individuals who become invested in the article's quality. I agree that the vast majority of writers don't know an expletive from a superlative, but the fact that anyone can write also allows anyone to edit. I have always been impressed by the usual swiftness with which vandalism of articles is reverted. --Shaggorama (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style guides infobox ...

... is *WAY* too wide. I don't know how to edit them, but it needs some forced column breaks to narrow-ify it. - DavidWBrooks 13:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised it; see editing history of the template; please comment on template talk page: Template talk:Styles. --NYScholar 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - thanks. - DavidWBrooks 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small problem

I looked here for naming conventions, and find that the Gold Shield has somehow prevented me from closing this tab in my browser (Netscape/Mozilla). The little cross to close the tab has gone, as well as the menu function to "Close this tab" has also been disabled

Can anyone explain why this is ? (it has automatically place the tab on the protected tabs list in my web-browser)

I am using Twinkle but cannot imagine this is causing the problem

Thanks : Chaosdruid (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:REFDESK for computer questions and WP:NAME for naming conventions. I'm happy to field any questions about AP Stylebook here or on my talk page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lame

This is the worst Wiki page for such an important book! I'd be happy to explain what the AP Stylebook is. Apparently, no one here has the guts to do so. Let me know. I speak "English." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.251.65 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Be bold! --Ian Weller (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating cover

The image could probably use updating from the 2004 edition if anyone knows how to do that and is so inclined. - Sdkb (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New additions

Hello all,

I added some new additions to the definition due to some of the new changes AP has made to the style book. Such as the book being made every other year in print instead of every year. I added new additions and awareness to the Spanish edition of the AP Stylebook especially to the history section. I also added the section for the digital security content that was added to the AP Stylebook in the past year. References to the other titles such as the "journalist bible" or the "Manual de Estilo". Some grammatical erros were made as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyg2021 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence in the "Influence on American English" section

To be totally honest, the first sentence in that section reads like a (slightly morbid) corporate slogan—it even cites an Associated Press PR puff piece. I hate to be pedantic, but I think that sentence should get changed to something more neutral. ComradePingu1917 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]