Template talk:proscribed

Template:proscribed
I was considering a merge with. Obviously these aren'y strict synonyms, but most of the time they're gonna overlap, and I find the parent category of proscribed (Category:Disputed usage) a bit problematic. I'm unsure, but isn't that why we have these discussion pages, to discuss? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking, lack of input. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

RFM discussion: September 2012–April 2013
We're not a proscriptive dictionary, right? So why are we labeling senses as (proscribed)? I suggest that we merge this with the more descriptive. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't proscribe. indicates that many people proscribe it not that we do. Nonstandard is not the same thing as proscribed. In English, for example, there is no standard so it makes no sense to label things as nonstandard but there are words that are proscribed. In other languages, there can be words that differ from the standard but are not proscribed. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's mostly right. We do label things as "nonstandard" in English (e.g. hoi polloi's second sense). But "proscribed" is different in that it means, as you note, that some other authority (not us) actually proscribes the usage. On good days, we even specify which authority in usage notes. - -sche (discuss) 07:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In English, from a descriptive perspective, "nonstandard" and "proscribed" are potentially useful. It is objectively true that some people view certain grammar, spelling, and pronunciation as "bad English", which we soften to "nonstandard" or "proscribed". In some ways, "proscribed" is better because it more readily causes a user to ask "by whom". This forces us to get outside of our own idiolects and find some support for the tag. On what authority do we label things as "nonstandard"? Where is the standard? We have a lot of trouble even doing something as simple as labeling something a common misspelling, rather than an alternative spelling, but there are plenty who view some spellings as simply wrong.
 * Moreover, I am reasonably sure that many users want such information. It is one of those areas that leads users to put comments on talk pages, Feedback, Info desk, and TR.
 * Empirically, I think we would find that "proscribed" seems mostly to be used for matters of grammar and style on which we can find authorities to opine and "nonstandard" seems to mean we are relying on our own unsupported community opinion. DCDuring TALK 10:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We should describe usage as well as definition, so things like formal, colloquial, slang (etc.) should be noted. I do struggle a bit with this. I never use it, and use nonstandard. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with labeling a sense as "proscribed" is that, as Metaknowledge implies, it makes it sound like we are proscribing it. I prefer to write "sometimes proscribed" or "often proscribed", which I think makes it a bit clearer that we're talking about other people's proscriptions. And probably "condemned" or "criticized" would be better than "proscribed". —Ruakh TALK 19:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am adding to capture one class of "proscribed" or "disputed" usage. See WT:TR. DCDuring TALK  15:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

K This is useful. Proscribed is stronger than nonstandard, and implies some different qualities. (Loosely is quite different, implying that a given definition is being applied less strictly.)


 * Nonstandard is omitted from standards, while proscribed is prohibited by them.
 * Nonstandard may be casual but correct, while proscribed is considered wrong.
 * Nonstandard may be acceptably used to reflect regionalism, dialect, or jargon, while proscribed reflects broken language.

As with other labels, qualifiers sometimes, often – or more often rarely or chiefly – convey the frequency of the usage. It’s incorrect to try to use them only to assign blame elsewhere. If someone wants to know exactly what the label means, the glossary is a click away.

It’s lexicography, not physics. Word usage is a series of greys, not black and white, and the dictionary benefits from editors’ opinions, moderated by the wiki process. —Michael Z. 2013-04-02 16:21 z 
 * But we apparently don't have enough English contributors, at least ones who care about this, to actually keep this from being used improperly. About a third of the applications in English seem wrong by my lights. If we can't maintain it, should we permit it? DCDuring TALK 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)