Category talk:Disputed usage

Is "usages" an English word? It sounds funny to me and dictionary.com lists no plural. I'm pretty sure it's an uncountable noun (mass noun etc). A google search for "usages" does not provide a clickable link as it does for other plurals, and it turns up a whole bunch of French pages. &mdash; Hippietrail 12:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. "Disputed usage" sounds better anyways.

What constitutes a "disputed usage"?
 One of the problems with this category (that may require subcategories to resolve) is what our definition of disputed usage is, as well as what the goal of our category is. Are we referring to words and usage that are accepted in common English, but would not be accepted in a formal context? (this would be quite a large list, but would not properly include things like data and tidal wave, since both are commonly accepted in formal contexts) Are we referring to words and usage that have conflicted usage in formal English? (this would be a reasonably small list, including data, tidal wave, and they/their, but it would exclude things like criteria and dice, since neither of those are in any way disputed within the realm of formal English, as far as I know.). Is there any value in using this same category for both types of "disputed usage" (I don't think so). Let's discuss.


 * Having just re-read the discussion page on previous 'perscriptivism' version of this page, it seems likely to instigate another childish flamewar/revert war, to suggest this be anything less than an umbrella category. Usage notes within articles describe the severity of the "disputed use."  This either should be a category grouping them all together, or else it probably should not exist as a category.  My two cents.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category template?
User:dmh suggested using a template for assigning terms to this category. Was one created yet? or ? --Connel MacKenzie 18:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving in rfd discussion that preceded the creation of this page with this name


 * Category:English words affected by prescriptivism I fail to see the usefulness of such a category. Eclecticology 21:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to disagree, then I looked at some of the pages categorized as such and realized that fixing it would be as easy as adding a category, or I didn't know why they were categorized as prescriptivism, so whats the point. Better for folks to use the discussion page or . *:--Eean 04:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there's a valid point to it, though I'm sure it can be done in a better way.
 * See the discussion page for this category. I think the basic idea is a good one, but I wouldn't mind a better name. -dmh 06:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's my category and I'm not crazy about the name either but couldn't find a shorter name which said what I wanted. See the talk page about why i chose this name. The shorter names suggested so far are not descriptive enough to match my intention. &mdash; Hippietrail 04:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleting the whole category merely becuase of one contributors failure to see seems quite a bit too far. Maybe a better description of this failure would help elucidat the reasons. It's useful because it provides a central place to find various terms or pairs of terms which get taken up into the "that's what i've always said - why is it wrong?" argument. &mdash; Hippietrail 04:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is of course being continued on the talk page. It looks as though there will be a general agreement to continue the category under a different title. Eclecticology 04:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Category:Disputed_usages - Sorry, ec, I moved this to Category:Disputed_usage as that will raise fewer eyebrows with regard to correctness.
 * "Usages" reflected the tendency to use the plural in category names, but I can live with the singular. This point to me is much less important than getting rid of "prescriptivism" from the category title. Eclecticology 10:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)