Pain in the English

When you link something in a quote, should we include the double quotes in the link? For instance:

I asked where to look, and John answered, “Wikipedia!”

or

I asked where to look, and John answered, “Wikipedia!”

This is really a matter of style, but I’m wondering if any major sites have a style guide that specifies this.

I'm still undecided on how to spell correctly:
“Drum Track Recording Service” or
“Drum Tracks Recording Service”.
I'm personally voting for the second variant, but as I'm not a native English speaker, I'm not sure.

I've noticed in the past that the BBC News Web site seems to be rather hit-or-miss with its use of acronyms and abbreviations. One I see repeatedly is its use of “Nasa” for “NASA,” and another I noticed today is “Farc” instead of “FARC” for the Colombian guerrilla group. At the same time, UK, TV, PM, US, and even BBC are treated as I would expect. Can anyone explain this beyond “the editors are twits”?

The abbreviation which prompted me to post this, though, is their habit of abbreviating “Sri Lanka” as “S Lanka.” Why would anyone think it necessary to drop those two characters?

By way of introduction, my name is Mike, and I was born and raised in southern California. I'm a survivor of public schools through high school graduation in 1978. I know full well that my command of the English language is far from perfect, and I do not attempt to correct errors in others' informal writing or speech, but journalists, authors, and others who write for public consumption I hold to a higher standard, and are therefore considered fair game. :-)

Isn't it redundant to say
That is the REASON WHY I am here.

Isn't the 'reason' the 'why' as well? But how come many people use it?

I'm helping to rewrite my organisation's style guide. I prefer (and we have always used) Collins but some other colleagues prefer the OED.

Does anyone have any strong views on their respective merits?

thanks,
James

There wasn't a clause left in the sole agency contract that wasn't a source of conflict.

The author of a book I am editing refuses to change the above sentence to:
Every clause left in the sole agency contract was a source of conflict.

His reason is this is “a literary device to accentuate [my point]” . I think it is bad English to use the same word twice in one sentence. Am I being pedantic?

I read this sentence and I felt kind of weird about it:

The suppliers imposed us to absorb price increase.

I won't say that it's wrong to use IMPOSE in that sentence, neither that ABSORB cannot be used like that, but wouldn't it sound better, and maybe even clearer to use one of the following alternatives?
1. The suppliers forced us to accept price increase.
2. The suppliers made us accept price increase.
3. The suppliers left us no choice but to accept price increase.
4. The suppliers left us no choice but to deal with price increase.
5. The suppliers imposed price increase on us and we were forced to accept it.
6. The suppliers imposed price increase on us and we were forced to deal with it.
7. The suppliers imposed price increase on us and we could do nothing about it.

Any opinion appreciated…

When CC: a person(s) in a business letter, is it necessary to fully type their business name after their name or is an abbreviation acceptable.

For example:
CC; So-and-so FCCC or Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation

I’ve read a number of books, and when an author uses a colon in a sentence to define something he wrote in simpler terms or to define in a more detailed manner, he capitalizes the next word. Such as, “The blue sky was beautiful: The sky resembled a cascading fall into the bountiful white clouds.” Should I also capitalize the T in “The”?