Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

60%
+1 −0
Q&A Is it overkill to follow style-guides for technical writing?

Not overkill at all. However, the Chicago Manual of Style is not really ideal for technical writing (and is intended as a look-it-up reference, not a cover-to-cover read). It is a good guide to gen...

posted 9y ago by S. McCandlish‭  ·  last activity 5y ago by System‭

Answer
#3: Attribution notice added by user avatar System‭ · 2019-12-08T02:16:54Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/19067
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision by user avatar S. McCandlish‭ · 2019-12-08T02:16:54Z (about 5 years ago)
Not overkill at all. However, the _Chicago Manual of Style_ is not really ideal for technical writing (and is intended as a look-it-up reference, not a cover-to-cover read). It is a good guide to general, formal writing for Americans. For a more international audience, the equivalent is _The Oxford Guide to Style_ (a.k.a. _New Hart's Rules_, also published as half of _Oxford Style Manual_).

The principal problem with _Chicago_ is that its editors are strongly opposed to the use of logical quotation (i.e., including within the quotation marks nothing that was not present in the original quotation) except for "textual criticism" and "computer code and commands". They otherwise recommend nothing but American journalism- and fiction-style quotation punctuation, in which periods (stops, dots) and commas are always placed inside the quotation mark even if they don't logically belong there. This is a terrible idea in any technical, or other precise, form of writing, though it remains favored by the _AP Stylebook_ and other American journalistic style manuals.

If technical writing is your job, I'd advise owning the _Chicago_, _Oxford_, and _AP_ manuals (as well as any other style guides you may need, e.g the legal _Bluebook_ and _Redbook_, and Oxford equivalent, _OSCOLA_, which is a free PDF; and/or the _CSE_, _AMA_ and _APA_ science/medical style guides). Adapt your style as necessary. For business communication to Americans, use _Chicago_; for PR materials intended for Americans, use _AP_, for an international audience, rely on _Oxford_ (also when quoting with high precision, e.g. typed commands or the labels on device controls). Turn to _CSE_, etc., as needed for scientific writing. You might also be called upon sometimes to comply with _MLA Style Manual_ for some purposes. These books are all a good investment for any professional writer of non-fiction. So is updating them to new editions as they are released; sometimes the changes are significant. Effective use of language is a moving target.

#1: Imported from external source by user avatar System‭ · 2015-09-19T23:59:06Z (about 9 years ago)
Original score: 6