Brand Voice and Editorial Style

Preferred Words and Do-Not-Use List

Maintain contextual word choices, discouraged language, plain alternatives, reasons, examples, exceptions, regional notes, and review ownership.

Free editable Markdown · Brand teams, editors, and localization teams · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Entry evidence

Entry ID: [Durable identifier]
Term or phrase: [Language under review]
Problematic context: [Where and how it causes concern]
Reason: [Ambiguous, inaccurate, outdated, stigmatizing, vague, or another]
Reader effect: [Confusion, exclusion, wrong action, or another]
Evidence: [Research, guidance, edit pattern, or source]
Evidence date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Owner: [Qualified role]

Preferred guidance

Preferred alternative: [Term or instruction]
Meaning: [What it should communicate]
Use when: [Context]
Do not use when: [Boundary]
Good example: [Sentence with suitable wording]
Revise this example: [Sentence showing the problem]
Better revision: [Contextual replacement]
No direct replacement: [Question the writer should answer]

Exceptions and language

Legitimate exception: [Quotation, proper name, formal term, self-identification, or another]
First-use explanation: [If a formal term remains]
Regional variation: [Locale-specific note]
Localization guidance: [Concept and risk; avoid literal substitution]
Grammar or capitalization: [Relevant forms]

The alternative preserves factual and technical meaning.
The guidance does not erase a person’s chosen self-description.
Search-and-replace is safe only after contextual review.

Lifecycle

Approved by: [Name or role]
Effective date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Affected content: [High-priority locations]
Migration owner: [Role and due date]
Questions route: [Where writers ask]
Review trigger: [Language, product, legal, or community change]
Superseded entry: [ID or None]

How to use this template

Collect recurring terms from edits, research, support confusion, community guidance, localization, and product changes.
Define the problematic meaning and context, then document current evidence and affected readers.
Propose plain, accurate alternatives with positive and negative examples plus legitimate exceptions.
Obtain the appropriate editorial, subject, legal, or community-informed review and publish the decision.
Migrate carefully, audit usage, capture questions, and review entries when language or context changes.

Write guidance around meaning

A bare pair such as “do not use X; use Y” assumes the words are interchangeable everywhere. Record the meaning and context that create the problem. A term may be vague in instructions, inaccurate for a product state, needlessly violent in casual marketing, stigmatizing when applied to people, or acceptable inside a formal quotation. Explain the reader effect rather than appealing only to taste. When no single replacement works, provide a question: describe the actual action, name who decides, or specify the condition. This helps writers make a truthful choice instead of swapping one vague word for another.

Source and test alternatives

Use audience research, subject expertise, community guidance, accessibility practice, localization feedback, and observed confusion. Date sensitive guidance and avoid claiming that one person represents an entire group. Test proposed alternatives inside real sentences; a preferred noun may become awkward as a verb or fail in a compact interface. Include capitalization, grammatical forms, regional differences, and formal terms that must remain. Search metadata can use audience vocabulary responsibly, but it should not repeat harmful or misleading language merely for traffic.

Maintain a usable tool

Organize entries by concept or context and make them searchable. Limit the highest-priority list to decisions writers encounter often; link complex issues to a terminology record or policy. Give every entry an owner, effective date, and review trigger. Before bulk changes, check homonyms, quoted material, code, external names, historic records, and translations. Sample actual content after rollout and invite questions. Repeated exceptions may reveal weak guidance, while repeated harmful usage may require stronger workflow controls than a style note.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: replace “simply”

The style decision below belongs to an invented service guide.

Term: “Simply,” when it dismisses a multi-step task.
Reason: The word adds no instruction and can blame readers when prerequisites are missing.
Preferred action: Remove it and state the real step, dependency, or expected time.
Before: “Simply verify the archive and restore your access.”
After: “Ask an administrator to verify the archive. After confirmation, use the restore link within 24 hours.”

Frequently asked questions

Should every discouraged word be banned?

No. Many decisions depend on meaning and context. Reserve absolute prohibitions for clearly defined cases with strong reasons, and document exceptions. Contextual guidance usually produces more accurate writing than a universal blacklist.

Can an automated checker enforce the list?

It can flag candidate occurrences, but a human must interpret context, quotations, names, and technical meaning. Configure messages to explain the reason and alternative rather than silently replacing text.

How should disagreements be resolved?

Return to the concept, audience effect, current evidence, and decision authority. Record the strongest competing view and an exception if justified. Reopen the guidance when new evidence changes the balance.

Does English guidance apply to translated content?

The underlying risk may carry over, but word choice does not map mechanically. Give localization teams the concept, reason, and examples, then approve language-specific guidance with regional reviewers.