Giraffedata

I have deleted the talk for 2008. There is not much there of reference value, so I just summarize it here. Of course, you can see the original discussion in the history of this page: just look at the last revision of 2008.

All of the comments but one were about edits I made to the phrase "comprised of." In September, I created my user subpage covering that topic and the comments dropped off sharply.

Two comments simply asked for an explanation of the edit.

15 commenters objected in some way to the "comprised of" work. The objections ranged from pointing out that I had introduced a typo in the process, which the commenter had corrected, to open personal insults.

4 comments expressed support for the work, 3 strongly. One of them was from a former user of "comprised of."

I caution anyone who might be using these numbers to draw a conclusion about the consensus of English speakers on the validity of "comprised of" that this is in no way a representative sampling. The total number of commenters is a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of edits and the commenters self-select.

Objecting comments were almost entirely inspired by a particular edit someone noticed.

In 4 cases, the commenter says he reverted my edit. In 2 of those, there is no claim that the reversion improves the article, and I believe the point of the reversion, and telling me about it, was to make a point. In 2 additional cases, the commenter says he further edited my edit.

Several objections were based on the fact that dictionaries list the offending usage as one of the definitions of "comprise." I and one other commenter responded that a usage being listed in a dictionary doesn't mean you shouldn't avoid it. That's not what dictionaries are for.

One of the comments claimed the original "comprised of" phrasing was superior to my phrasing, but the commenter declined to explain. His response to my request for an explanation was a sarcastic insult, and my followup request was unanswered.

One objection seems to have been based on a misreading of the edit, but it isn't clear because the commenter concentrated on attacking me rather than discussing the article. The exchange ends with, "You are a silly, silly man who is simply incapable of ... Case closed."

One commenter took issue with my edit summary, "fix 'comprised of'," saying it implied "comprised of" is grammatically incorrect, while he believed it is not. I explained that I don't think "fix" implies grammatical incorrectness.

Another commenter thought my fix was an irresponsible hack job that corrupted the text, but after some discussion apologized and agreed that he had just misread what I wrote. And re-edited it to make it read better.

Three commenters discussed the futility of the work. They didn't say what they were assuming is the goal of the work, but it appears to be something like "eliminate 'comprised of' from the English language." I said that isn't my goal, but didn't say what my goal is.

The only comment not about "comprised of" was a question asking, since I was interested in grammar disputes, what I thought of "color" vs "colour." I said I think that is in a whole different category (and that I'm perfectly OK with them being used in their respective dialects, but that I would have opposed "color" when it was new).

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

I have deleted the talk for 2009. There is not much there of reference value, so I just summarize it here. Of course, you can see the original discussion in the history of this page: just look at the last revision of 2009.

Like in the previous year, all the comments but two were about edits I made to the phrase "comprised of." There were fewer negative comments in 2009, though, and more positive ones. I believe this is because late in 2008, I created my user subpage covering the topic and would-be commenters read that first. It could also be that I stopped using an edit summary that may have evoked an emotional response in some: "fix 'comprised of'." There appears to have been some public call for participation that resulted in about half of the discussion.

10 comments objected in some way to the work. 7 comments (not counting mine) were favorable. As always, I caution anyone who might be using these numbers to draw a conclusion about the consensus of English speakers on the validity of "comprised of" that this is in no way a representative sampling. The total number of commenters is a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of edits and the commenters self-select.

One comment took issue specifically with the edit summary "fix 'comprised of'," taking it to mean that the original text was grammatically incorrect and saying that on that basis the commenter almost reverted the edit. I responded that I don't think "fix" implies a grammatical correction. I also said a false accusation of incorrect grammar isn't a reason to revert anyway. But I said that I would nonetheless stop using that phrasing in order to avoid such reversions. (I switched to simply "comprised of" in quotes for the edit summary).

One commenter asked my opinion on another questionable use of "to comprise": to make up or constitute as in "red balls comprise half the entire selection." I said I hate that too.

One commenter wanted to take issue with my description of my motivation in my user subpage about "comprised of," which said "I don't edit for personal preference." The commenter basically points out that I obviously prefer to edit than not to, so the edits are based on personal preference. I tried to explain the distinction I was trying to make, and ultimately said I would try a different wording.

Along the same lines, another commenter said because some people have no problem with "comprised of," then changing sentences to the wording I prefer is imposing my point of view on readers, in a way which is against Wikipedia policy. I said I don't believe the Wikipedia Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy applies to language issues and furthermore that I don't think the reader is imposed upon in any way by not having the opportunity to read "comprised of."

There was a discussion about which is better: "the band is composed of John Jones and Mary Mason" or "the band consists of John Jones and Mary Mason."

There were two comments not related to "comprised of":

An editor asked for my opinion on a dispute he was having with another editor about verbiage in an article dealing with who was Muhammad's true successor. This was interesting, because it is a very sensitive topic, and not one I have any particular interest or expertise in. The reason he asked is that I was one of the recent editors of the article. Why? Because it contained the phrase "comprised of"! Nonetheless, I researched the issue and rendered my opinion.

A commenter praised my extensive changes to the Restrictive Covenant article. This has no relation to the "comprised of" work -- it was just a topic I looked up because I was interested and happen to know a lot about.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

I have deleted the talk for 2010. There is not much there of reference value, so I just summarize it here. Of course, you can see the original discussion in the history of this page: just look at the last revision of 2010.

Like in previous years, all the comments but one were about edits I made to the phrase "comprised of." Continuing the trend, the distribution of positive and negative comments was more positive than the previous year. There were 9 positives and 7 negatives, and 5 of those negatives were only barely negative, many of them being combined with overall approval of the project.

3 comments pointed out that I had accidentally changed a quotation.

There was a short exchange with AnmaFinotera, who is strenuously against the project, to the point that she said her policy is to revert my edits even though she doesn't believe the reversion improves the article. She didn't go so far as to say what the point of those reversions is. This exchange includes various personal attacks on me (as distinct from discussion of my edits), and also a claim that consensus is against the project.

One comment says that "composed of" is better than "made up of" for geological composition, as in "the area is made up of granite and basalt." I said I'm OK with either, but still prefer "made up of" for that.

An editor reported three places that the "comprised of" project has been discussed. I added those references to my user subpage on the project.

An editor asked how I do the edits, technically. I explained and also added a section to the user subpage.

There was a brief discussion of the phrase "try and," which derived from a discussion of how people judge "comprised of" correct because they're used to hearing it, even if it doesn't make logical sense. "Try and" is a great example of the same thing because it's commonly used, but there is no logical sense in it at all.

The one comment not related to "comprised of" was a request from an editor for assistance in a Wikipedia technical matter -- getting a category to work. This editor came to me because I had done a "comprised of" edit on the article with which he was having the problem and assumed I was experienced in editing Wikipedia.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

I have deleted the talk for 2011. There is not much there of reference value, so I just summarize it here. Of course, you can see the original discussion in the history of this page: just look at the last revision of 2011.

Like in previous years, the great majority of the comments were about edits I made to the phrase "comprised of." But unlike previous years, there was very little criticism. There were two complaints, both essentially withdrawn later, after extensive discussion. There were four requests for more explanation or for advice. There were four compliments/thanks, including the Executive Director's Barnstar, awarded by the Executive Directory of Wikimedia The latter doesn't apply specifically to "comprised of" edits, but I know I was nominated, with the phrase, "The MOST AWESOME WikiGnome ever," based primarily on those edits. Five comments pointed out that I had inadvertently edited a quotation. I thanked the commenter.

One comment was about an edit I made to add "sic" to the phrase "chomping at the bit" in a quotation. The commenter wanted to know why I did it, and I explained that "chomping" is an error (the horse champs; it doesn't chomp). We also discussed the use of "sic" in general and the meaning of prescriptive grammar versus descriptive grammar.

One comment said simply, "do you have a life?" As silly as the comment is, I did answer (essentially, "yes").

One comment was a question about information I added to the Vortex86 article. I answered.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

I have deleted the talk for 2012. There is not much there of reference value, so I just summarize it here. Of course, you can see the original discussion in the history of this page: just look at the last revision of 2012.

This was the most positive year yet for comments on my project to remove the phrase "comprised of" from Wikipedia articles. There were 18 positive comments, compared to 2 negative. One of the negative comments just pointed out that I had inadvertently edited a quotation. The other negative comment stated (incorrectly) that "comprised of" is a matter of regional dialect and that it is fully accepted in the UK. I responded by saying I would try to get some numerical evidence one way or the other, and then that I had done so and the evidence showed the phrase is not more accepted in the UK. Many of the positive comments indicated that I had corrected the poster's work and the poster had learned something as a result and would refrain from making the mistake in the future. One of the positive comments, apparently referring to the fact that I live in California, was entitled, "A Californian lecturing people on English?" I asked what his point was (is there a stereotype of Californians being poor writers of English?), but didn't get a response.

One comment suggested that I add an "in a nutshell" summary to my "comprised of" article. I responded that I had done so.

One comment pointed out copious grammatical and other writing errors in my "comprised of" article. I responded that I had corrected them all and learned a few things.

There was one discussion that wandered into the topic of some other errors, including less/fewer and "irregardless."

An editor asked for help, from a grammatical point of view, translating the Afghan National Anthem into English. I offered a few corrections.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

I have deleted the talk for 2013. I summarize it here, and you can see the original discussion in the history of this page: just look at the last revision of 2013.

All of the discussion this year was at least tangentially related to my work on abuse of the verb "to comprise" in Wikipedia.

Most of the comments were praise. Other than people pointing out accidental edits of quotes, there were only two negative comments about the work this year.

One was from a person who watches the New Jersey articles and objected to receiving notifications of 30 changes I made in a day to them, adding a "sic" tag to footnotes. The New Jersey articles are a collection of a few hundred articles about municipalities and school districts in New Jersey that share some source that uses the phrase "comprised of," so that footnotes in all of these articles contain that phrase. These 30 articles were either recent additions to that collection or had recent updates to the footnote. The complaining editor apparently did not understand the function of the "sic" tag -- it doesn't affect the displayed text at all, but it prevents automated and semi-automated grammar editing processes from accidentally editing the quotation. I explained that.

The other negative comment was a fairly common request that I leave "comprised of" in a particular article alone because the requester functions as the owner of the article and doesn't believe there is anything wrong with "comprised of". The requester had apparently written "comprised of" in this article three times and each time I changed it about six months later and he changed it back immediately afterward. He argued that I don't have the right to decide unilaterally the grammar to be used in Wikipedia. I asked why that same argument doesn't apply to his insistence on having "comprised of" in the article, but did not get a response. I also pointed out that because the article read the way he wanted it all but a few days a year, he was already winning the battle to control the article. We both indicated we would continue our respective editing.

One comment suggested renaming my "comprised of" essay, for an interesting reason: The essay is widely cited and shows up in search results and reference lists and such, which increases the exposure of the phrase and will tend to cause people who see it to reuse the phrase themselves. I responded that while that effect probably does exist, I thought any alternative title for the essay would make it harder to understand what the essay is about and the cost of that would be higher than the cost of giving "comprised of" more exposure.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

I have deleted the talk for 2014. I summarize it here, and you can see the original discussion in the history of this page: Just look at the last revision of 2014.

All of the discussion this year was at least tangentially related to my work on abuse of the verb "to comprise" in Wikipedia.

The oversimplified positive/negative tally this year in the comments was 8 positive, 4 negative, 2 of which were just about an inadvertent edit of a quote. This is about the same as the previous year. The praise was actually less in absolute terms than in past years, and I suspect it is because of the advent of the "thanks" button in Wikipedia. I received a lot of feedback that way.

One of the true negative comments about the project (and the underlying grammar) was a thoughtful criticism of my essay explaining my reasoning for the edits. It offered rebuttals to "sources" in the essay that supposedly back up my opinion. I said those aren't sources, but just a collection of comments from other people. The comment also suggested switching my efforts to some other English usage that is more universally disliked.

The other negative comment simply rehashed the usual arguments: lots of people say it, at least some people have been saying it for a long time, the dictionary acknowledges that people say it, and language evolves.

There was a brief discussion of whether it accords respectability to a phrase that lawyers use it.

One of the positive comments was especially noteworthy, because it came from Andrew McMillan, not a regular Wikipedia editor, but someone who discovered my project in the process of researching the "comprised of" issue himself and was so impressed by it that he later wrote an article about it in Backchannel. That article seeded a weeklong flurry of publicity for the project and for me in February 2015.

One comment asked how I notice "comprised of" in an article almost as soon as it is written. I and another editor explained the Wikipedia search facility.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

I have deleted the talk for 2015. I summarize it here, and you can see the original discussion in the history of this page. Just look at the last revision of 2015.

There was far more talk in 2015 than in previous years because there was a flurry of press coverage of my work on Wikipedia, editing the phrase "comprised of", in February. Besides the talk about the media coverage itself, the talk was pretty much the same as in previous years, but with more participants and more extreme comments. The latter can probably be explained by the fact that in previous years, most people who discovered my work were regular Wikipedia editors, while this year, they were from all over.

Supporters far outnumbered detractors, more than in previous years. This is likely because this year participants weren't mostly people whose article I had changed.

A person asked what I think about "bored of" vs "bored with". I said "bored with" is more correct but "bored of" isn't exactly stupid.

A person asked whether it's "impressed with" or "impressed by". I said they mean different things, but usually "impressed by" is what you want.

A person asked for my advice concerning the article on The Jordan Institute, which was mostly a promotional brochure and which I had slightly improved by deleting one paragraph. I advised that someone should chop out everything else that isn't an encyclopedic fact from the article, but I hadn't had time to do it myself.

There was a discussion, which involved me by accident, of a bizarre use of "[sic]" in the article on the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. An editor had used it on a non-quote sentence in an article, to indicate that the sentence was nonsensical. And defended the use at length.

One comment questioned my changing of the number style in an article and pointed out that I had misunderstood the Wikipedia Manual of Style on that point (in particular, I had changed large numbers from words to figures because I thought MOS required it, but it does not).

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

 

For the correction you made on two of my "comprised of" edits on Nanga Parbat. (Blame my Australian background for it, sorry! :-) )

Qwrk (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I hope you will agree that the result here [1] is clumsy. Why not "consists of"? Philip Trueman (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is a typo. But "consists of" does not work; we need an adjective here (like the participle "comprised of"), not a verb. I meant to type the participle "consisting of". That at least fits the syntax. I'll fix it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Inorganic compound may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• An '''inorganic compound''' is a compound that is not [[Organic compound|organic]. The term is not well defined, but in its simplest definition refers

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the Ishrat Jahan case article, your changes were inside of a block quote. Yes, your version was better, but it is not what the quoted source said. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

One reason I missed the fact that this is a quotation is that it is a large excerpt of a source, too big for an encyclopedia article; the article should instead paraphrase it and cite the source for people who want to see the original. Wikipedia:Do_not_include_the_full_text_of_lengthy_primary_sources. I won't do anything about that now, but I did tag the grammar problem that drew me to that article to prevent such a mistake in the future. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've been a busy Wiki "Creator Elf", recently making whole pages while overlooking some grammar hiccups. Thank you, again, for your careful reading and editing.Rockenthusiast1979 (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for editing the mistakes.

Khubbajechele (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Moved from user page -- Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC))Reply

I was wondering if you'd seen this: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/12/392568604/dont-you-dare-use-comprised-of-on-wikipedia-one-editor-will-take-it-out

Yes, I have. That was part of a flurry of media coverage. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

And today —Tamfang (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for tirelessly working to fix the writing of hacks like me! :) Keilana (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comprised of is an expression in English: X "is comprised of" Y means that X is composed or made up of Y, according to Wikipedia. Thanks. MusiCitizen (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is, but you should not use Wikipedia as a source for that fact; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Instead, you should use one of the major English dictionaries, as you'll see in my essay on the topic.

And it should be noted that like many other English expressions, this one is not the best way to say something in most cases. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, such as...it should be noted  . Lizard (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually aware of that essay, and while I think its point is pretty weak, in deference to the folks who cared enough to write it, I try to follow it in Wikipedia articles. And I knew there was a good chance someone would bring it up and give me the chance to explain why it doesn't apply here!

It doesn't apply because I'm not really trying to say (right here, anyway) that "comprised of" isn't the best way to say "composed of". I'm saying that when one notes, as MusiCitizen does here, that the phrase exists in English, one should at the same time note that it's not the best way to say something. And by the way, dictionaries usually do just that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Giraffedata, I notice that your are replacing occurrences of "comprised of" with something else. Please note that, according to some, the expression is correct—see article Comprised of. But that's not the problem. The result of this change was "... a compilation CD, composed of unreleased compositions...", which was not an improvement, so I had undone your edit. On the other hand, as I don't like the expression either, I have now removed it altogether ([2]), resulting in "... a compilation CD with unreleased compositions..." Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the essay linked in my edit summary notes that some people are OK with "comprised of". In fact, that's pretty obvious from all the people using it in Wikipedia.

"Was not an improvement" is the wrong standard, by the way. Since you know the person who made the edit considered it an improvement, you shouldn't undo it unless you believe it makes the article worse. And since you shouldn't simply place your opinion over that of another editor (the two of us have equal right to choose the wording of this article), even then a simple undo shouldn't be your first choice, so I'm glad you found something that satisfies us both. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

You went for what appeared at first glance to be an instance of "comprised of" on the page for Marin County, California, but I think there was actually nothing wrong with the passage you corrected. The sentence said, "Immigrants from Asia comprised 23.7% of the county's foreign population." That is not an instance of "comprised of" but an instance of "comprised 23.7%" and "23.7% of." I have no issue with your replacement phrasing, but I think it was unnecessary, and I think you're being a little overzealous in your quest to stamp out the phrase "comprised of" Rlitwin (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, I didn't take that as an instance of "comprised of", but I do think that it's the same disfavored backwards use of comprise (i.e. synonymous with "compose"). In its primary and undisputed meaning, comprise means to include - the whole comprises the parts. I think this sentence wants to make a point about Asian immigrants being the parts and a 23.7% portion of the population being the whole. It doesn't make a lot of sense the other way, with the immigrants being the whole and 23.7% of the population being the included parts.

While "comprised of" is by far the most common use of comprise=compose, and the easiest to locate, "Xes comprise N% of Y" is also pretty common. So is "X, Y, and Z comprise C".

I know the edit summary is a little misleading. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

(talk) (talk) Dear GD editor. I looked at your change to my wording at the Derek Schmidt article, and couldn't understand the reason for your making the change. So before I came to your USER and TALK pages, I went to the dictionary and found this:

past tense: comprised; past participle: comprised

consist of; be made up of. "the country comprises twenty states" Similar: consist of be made up of be composed of contain take in embrace encompass incorporate include involve cover comprehend make up; constitute.

"this single breed comprises 50 percent of the Swiss cattle population"

So, it's clear that both uses are correct. Now I left your change because it's no BFD. You didn't change the meaning of what I'd written, so I left the version you favored. But if I might, I'd suggest that you remove the alert that indicates that another editor has used the term you disfavor, and leave it alone: Otherwise, you'll be pissing off other editors who discover that some other editor has changed their correct edit and spend what may be valuable time to them trying to find out what and why you did what you did, with you favoring your own version exclusively. I'm sure you can find better things to do with your editing time without unnecessarily aggravating other editors. Adieu. Activist (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, comprise is frequently used that way and I don't claim it is incorrect. I do claim that comprise is not the best word to use for that meaning, and it isn't because I personally favor using comprise only in its primary definition; it's because millions of English writers do. While I don't like pissing off other editors, there isn't anything I can do about that while respecting the Third Pillar of Wikipedia, which says no one owns an article. That means the original writer of a sentence doesn't have any special privilege to choose the sentence's wording. Wikipedia just isn't the place for a writer who would be aggravated that another writer thinks there is a better way to phrase a sentence. I made it as easy as I could to figure out why I made the edit with a comprehensive essay that I refer to in the edit summary, and that essay does mention that dictionaries say comprise can mean constitute and explains why that doesn't mean it should be used that way in Wikipedia. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

[3] I'm wondering why you removed the text you did here, it seems to me like you've removed key details. WCM_email 19:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, I agree they're important details; they just didn't seem to be important enough to bloat the lead section, or necessary for the rest of the lead to make sense. The whole rest of the article is there for readers who want the whole story, but I found the length of the lead to be an impediment to getting a quick understanding of what the War was.

I didn't see these facts and determine they aren't worthy; I determined the lead was tiringly long and looked for what it could do without. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing the new article I wrote and created, Trump Revealed ! What do you think of the article? Sagecandor (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I didn't read the article. I'm just a wikignome copy editor, searching for grammar and style issues throughout the encyclopedia. Naturally, I get drawn frequently to articles that contain quotes from Donald Trump. But I don't read any more than I need to determine that the problem is inside a quotation and that the quotation is necessary. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. You recently substituted the phrase "is comprised of" with something simpler and concise ("has") in the article NEED Act. Although the change is quite valid, please note that the original wording is not part of the article's text but comes from a cited source - and as such it is not permissible to alter it, not even with the simple aim of improving the language. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me. I have tagged the phrase so this mistake won't happen again. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems pretty obvious to me that you have been canvassed about this but, regardless, and since Chris the Speller refused to explain the MOS gibberish, is there any chance that you could explain how the title for a specific job at a specific place is "generic"? That's what I do not understand. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was not canvassed; I watch User:Chris_the_speller's talk page because I am a fellow copy editor and he knows more than anyone I know about Wikipedia capitalization, among other things, and I learn from it. He does enough volume of work on capitalization that his interpretation of MOS is pretty important if you care about consistency. What I learned today is that an article had improperly capitalized job titles, and I consider it my duty to correct errors in articles when I see them. Hence my edit.

I don't see gibberish in MOS:JOBTITLES - it's pretty clear English to me in grammar, semantics, and such. Gibberish is like, "’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe". I also don't think it actually forbids capitalizing Lecturer; it does so only when the word is used generically, and you can use Lecturer non-generically, as you did.

But the point is moot because you should use lecturer generically. I believe "he was Lecturer" and "he was a lecturer" say different things; it's a semantic difference, not a style one. The former tells you what the institution calls his position and where he fits in its specific staffing structure. The latter tells you what his job is, in common terms you can find in the dictionary. I believe most Wikipedia readers couldn't care less what the institution calls him. Lecturer might not even mean lecturer - it could be a historical designation for a position that's actually quite different from lecturer. I once held a position that my employer called "Data Entry Operator II". But if anyone asked me what I did, I said, "I'm a data entry operator".

MOS hints at this when it gives the example, "Mitterand was the French president". Mitterand's office (give or take a French translation) was in fact President, but we don't care, because he was also what the dictionary calls president, and that's useful material. So I think what MOS is trying to say, though it could be more direct, is that where the title is also a generic common noun, and the generic noun fits the sentence, we should use the generic, uncapitalized noun. If, on the other hand, the title is something like First Citizen, we have a decision to make: use the title, capitalized, or try to find a generic common noun.

I think another great benefit of the common-noun-instead-of-title rule is that capital letters are jarring in a sentence; as Chris once said, having every other word capitalized is as annoying as a jack hammer. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Aaaah, you got me at Garlic sauce (comprised of). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit is one of many where you have falsely claimed that your edit is to address "questionable word usage in quotation to avoid copy editing interference". I don't give a crap that you are wasting your life with the self-assigned pointless task of "fixing" a now-standard usage of "comprised of". Where these usages appear in article text, your changes to wording are entirely unneeded. Where they appear in a direct quotation from a source -- be it a website, newspaper, magazine a book -- the change is even more useless. It's OK if you want you edit summary to claim that you are "avoiding copy editing interference", which might be accurate once you ignore the fact that the interference you are trying to avoid is entirely of your own creation. However, the claim that anything is "questionable" is out-and-out false; there is no question that the wording is used as quoted or that the usage is exceedingly common and widely accepted. Get rid of it word "questionable" and go on with correcting this non-problem. Once this is done, there's always the mindless task of working to boldly solve the split infinitive issue or dealing with the unnecessary correction of sentences ending a preposition with. Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will be happy to remove the word "questionable". I believe this will make the nature of the edit less understandable to many people, but until I see that cause a problem, I don't see why I can't accommodate you.

I agree there is no question that the quote is accurate or that the wording is common. The question is whether the wording should be used. (I'm talking about original text, of course; there's no question that it should be used when quoting someone who used it). If you do any reading at all about this phrase, you cannot escape the fact that many people question whether it should be used. Maybe your view is that it's not a valid question because the answer is obvious, but we can't go around saying a controversy doesn't exist just because one side is wrong. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Reverted your edit (but you will like it!! ;) ) Yosy (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Looks great! Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Bryan. Someone at Marvel One-Shots thought we shouldn't eliminate a ridiculous logical redundancy there, so I started a discussion on the talk page to dispute this ridiculous idea. Will you please come and support the correction of this error? Thanks, if you do. Be Your Own Hero (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much, Bryan, for your contribution! I left you a more public reply there! Be Your Own Hero (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey, the one disruptive editor is still fighting our consensus, and I've left him and you a new reply on the talk page. Will you please go back and continue the discussion according to our replies, friend? Thanks! Be Your Own Hero (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

WOW! From this edit for Delaware Township School District to this one for Totowa, New Jersey, you made about 50 edits to articles in which your edit summary is "Tag word usage in quotation to avoid copy editing interference". Each one of these uses an official source from a state website, article or other source in a direct quotation that proudly uses "comprised of" to mean "composed of".

Isn't it time to give up and accept that the usage is broadly accepted among all but the most obsessive pedants? Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Or, it's because education in the U.S. is functioning as expected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's hard for me to understand why this is such a hot issue for you that you don't seem able to let it go; we've been going around on this for years and the arguments haven't changed. The recent RfC failed to find anyone but you supporting your policy of excluding sic tags on "comprised of" in quotations in Wikipedia, and following that I thought we reached an understanding that if I used the particular edit summary that I did that you wouldn't fight my use of the tag. You had to expect the scores of New Jersey articles you were protecting from the tag would be affected. They are a unique set of articles in their use of "comprised of" in quotations - there is no other set of articles in the encyclopedia with this concentration (believe me - no one knows more than I do about where "comprised of" turns up in Wikipedia), and that's why I ended up doing 50 in a row today. (By the way, one of the reason for this concentration is that lots of articles have the same sources - it's not like there were 50 separate authors of 50 separate source documents choosing that wording).

As I've always said, "comprised of" is broadly accepted to mean "composed of". However, there is also broad support for not using "comprise" to mean compose in Wikipedia (and everywhere), not just among obsessive people; that gets demonstrated over and over as various people show up with the belief that I am the only person in the world who thinks "compose" is better writing than "comprise". Look at style manuals; look at Wikipedia talk pages; look at dictionaries.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fatima. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. Do you think that this change was really necessary? The disambiguation page Fatima includes the topic Fatima (given name), which is both concerned with language and related to the discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're right. It belongs in the languages and linguistics category. I missed that. I've put it back. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Show cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on "comprised (of)". I admit that I used to prefer "comprised of X" to mean "composed of X", but I am now convinced that "comprised X" is better. However, I'd argue that "comprised" is best avoided in many cases:

1. The word is not very common, and both meanings are found, so readers may be confused or surprised. It's best that word choice not call attention to itself, but communicate transparently.
2. It is not clear whether "comprise" is intended to be exclusive. Does "The dish comprises fruit and sugar" mean that those are the only two ingredients? That is, it is a synonym of "consists of" or of "includes"? In patent claim filings, it is not exclusive. In a sentence like "the United Kingdom comprises the four countries of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland", it seems to be intended as exclusive. To be unambiguous, do we need to say "comprises exactly" or "comprises only"?
3. It is abused and overused when simpler words would be clearer: why say "Deep-fried butter is a snack food comprising butter that is coated..." rather than "made of" or even "is"? see my edit

I get the impression that many editors use it because they think that it is more elegant or more precise or more elevated than "made of". It's a little like the overuse of "eponymous" on Wikipedia to mean simply "of the same name", where sometimes it's not even necessary to specify that. Do we need to write "the novel X and the eponymous movie"? or even "the novel X and the movie of the same name"? Why not just "the novel and the movie X" or "the novel X and the movie based on it"? Best, --Macrakis (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for commenting. I agree with all of that, except a slight disagreement with the idea of avoiding comprise altogether. I usually recommend to people who are struggling to understand the proper use of comprise just never to use it; there are enough easier words that are nearly identical that it's not worth the trouble. However, I use it myself because I think it helps readers to see it correctly used, since they most often see it used in the disfavored backward "compose" sense. In fact, I first learned of the comprise=compose issue when I was in college and saw "comprise" used in the forward sense for the first time, and I realized there was a direct conflict between that use and the more familiar "comprised of". I went to the dictionary to understand the conflict, and have used "comprise" only in the forward sense since that day. Twice, I've seen someone on Wikipedia "correct" "comprises" to "is comprised of", only to be corrected by someone else and learn something. I don't go out of my way to use "comprise" for this pedagogical purpose, of course - I just use it when I think it really is the best fitting word.

The situation with exhaustive inclusion is clear to me: Comprise can be correctly used for nonexhaustive inclusion, but its preferred usage is exhaustive inclusion. Saying the UK comprises the four nations at least strongly implies that there aren't any others. I read this in a style guide in a list of commonly abused words, and I find it's consistent with usage and also logical. I personally don't see any reason to use it nonexhaustively, so I don't. And if I think there's a risk of misunderstanding, I'll say "consists of" rather than the arguably redundant "comprises exactly".

I don't know about other uses of "comprise", but I definitely think people say "comprised of" a lot when simpler language is available just to sound smart. "Made of butter" is obviously better than "comprising butter", but the latter is unusual enough that I suspect this sentence started off as "comprised of butter", to sound smart, and someone incompletely corrected it to "comprising butter". A Wikipedia editor once objected to my writing that a piece of land was "made up of" its various mineral components because "made up of" isn't snooty enough, like "comprised of". I don't remember what adjective he really used - probably "professional". I was taught that sounding professional is a bad thing - more vulgar language communicates better. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you're a famous user, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11392756/Grammar-crusader-spends-years-removing-repeated-error-47000-times-on-Wikipedia.html, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2941444/Editor-extraordinaire-Obsessive-software-engineer-corrected-grammar-mistake-astonishing-47-000-times-Wikipedia.html, https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/people/wikipedia-grammar-vigilante-vows-keep-fighting-comprised-despite-resistance/. Anyway, I need you to check the grammar for UTV Software Communications, UTV Motion Pictures and UTV Indiagames please. These articles were primarily edited by Indian users so there may be a variety of grammatical errors lost in translation that even I couldn't identify. Thank you. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done. They were already close to perfect, though. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your contributions, though minor, they have made a positive impact to the readability of the articles. You don't mind also checking The Walt Disney Company India buy any chance too? as mentioned earlier, there may be grammatical errors even I couldn't identify. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was reading an article in the UK's Guardian newspaper about you entitled, "Why Wikipedia's grammar vigilante is wrong". It clearly demonstrates that your single handed authoritarian scorched earth mission to rid the earth of any use, at all, of a term that you personally find absolutely and always unacceptable is wrong. You may by shear fanaticism have held back the water for a decade - but I can assure you that usage of the word in accordance with the OED will win out over time. Myself, I'm 20 years old and I have noted your edit history, a "road map" if you will. I will never be able to unwind the entirety of the literally tens of thousands of zealous attacks you've inflicted on well meaning editors who on many occasions made perfectly correct edits using the term, "comprised of". But I do promise to undo all of these fleeting and temporary edits of yours in which you have removed the term only to install a lesser choice for no purpose other than to stop the apparent "sound of fingernails scraping blackboard" effect it may have on you. The term "comprised of", will in the long run, return. Naturally. Just as water must seek it's own level, "comprised of" shall be used again here properly and in accordance with the OED. Time is on our side. 172.58.143.49 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I remember that article. All it said was that people have been writing "comprised of" for a long time (I don't think it mentioned that people have also been correcting it for a long time) and it didn't make any case that it's superior to any other wording. Like any dictionary, OED doesn't tell you what it's OK to write in any particular place. It just tells you what people mean when they use a word.

Incidentally, you've misused the word "compulsion". A compulsion is something a person can't stop doing, even though he wants to. It's not just something a person does a lot. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

There's another statement in the above posting that deserves a response: "... attacks you've inflicted on well meaning editors ..." I have never attacked any editor via an article edit, and I never will. Any editor who feels attacked by having his words replaced or deleted in an article should refrain from editing Wikipedia, because it is a community project where everyone feels equal ownership over the articles. No one should take offense from the fact that another editor has a different opinion of what makes a good article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Attn: IP. Have you read any of this page? Bryan's a popular fellow on WP, the odd crank aside. And despite your hyperbole ("scorched earth policy"- really?) his work is entirely within both the letter and the spirit of the WP philosophy.

One's position on the acceptability of "comprised of" on this service comes down to one simple distinction: either you believe it's acceptable because "people do it", or you believe it's not because it's poor style. That's it. No scorched earth, no reign of terror, no dams holding back zealous attacks, or what have you. You either take the populist or the purist line, either of which are in themselves reasonable, and subject to the considered judgment of the WP community.

Most importantly, there is only one relevant measure of Bryan's edits: are they factually and grammatically correct? Whether you believe the expunged wording was already correct is utterly of no interest here. The question is: is the text correct now. If so, as I believe the standard American military response has it: "Pound sand." There's no place on WP for defending the honour of slighted words or syntax. Replacing correct usage with correct usage is perfectly allowable.

Bryan's contributions are unfailingly well-thought-out and his interactions with other editors civil and respectful. I've had the privelege of watching him defend himself against more than one rabid werewolf on this service, and have marveled at his sangfroid and unfailing politeness, in situations where I would long have devolved to obscenity.

This is an elementary question of encycolopædic style. A simple, gentlemanly "I disagree with your conclusion" is all that common sense allows here. Laodah 05:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

And another thing (a very important one, this.) You've said the following:

But I do promise to undo all of these fleeting and temporary edits of yours in which you have removed the term only to install a lesser choice for no purpose other than to stop the apparent "sound of fingernails scraping blackboard" effect it may have on you...

That behaviour is one of the most condemned and actively suppressed on Wikipedia. What you're proposing to do is called "wikistalking", and I heartily suggest you search that term on WP and read about the fate of others who have indulged in it.

Let me be categorically clear on this point:

You may not systematically revert the work of another editor.

Full stop. If you do, Bryan will not be the only WP editor reporting you to the guards, and insisting until they put a stop to you.

We are a coöperative, voluntary service, relying on the good faith and profitless contributions of well-meaning individuals, and none of us are empowered to bully others. If you had a vandalism case against Bryan things would be different, but since you don't the only recourse you have in your high dudgeon against his positive and selfless investment in this public service we all cherish is to grin and bear it.

Bryan is not alone here.

Laodah 17:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, let's be honest, there's a third option besides stalking me and just putting up with me: the Wikipedia dispute resolution process for disputes about the conduct of another editor. Basically, you open a discussion in some appropriate venue and try to achieve consensus that this editing is not welcome on Wikipedia. But I wouldn't recommend it, because in the ten years this has been going on, several other people had the same thoughts and did this, and each time the consensus failed to go their way and that's why I'm still here. If there were demonstrated consensus against this editing, one would be justified in reverting all my edits, but one wouldn't have to, because I'd stop making them. On several other occasions, other editors tried the vigilante approach (only not anonymously), and were turned back either by other editors reverting the reversions or by an administrator threatening a block for editing against consensus. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, you've made the Guardian, huh? Re your edit to Supergroup (music), I suggest you visit [4] and compare the usage sections of 'comprise' and 'compose.' It's one thing not to like a word, but if you're gonna replace it, the replacement needs to be at least as appropriate, or better. The usage section of the respective pages shows that 'compose' is used rarely, if at all, to describe assembling groups of living entities, whereas 'comprise' is used for just such purposes. So I'm reverting. Yours unpedantically Tapered (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've made many newspapers. The Guardian is the only one critical. I take that with a grain of salt because The Guardian was late to the coverage, so presenting the alternative view was the reasonable thing for it to do. There is a complete listing of coverage of my comprised of project outside of Wikipedia in my essay (User:Giraffedata/comprised of).

I am very curious about this rarity of use of "compose" to describe assembling groups of living entities, as in all the years I've been studying these words I've never come across even a suggestion of that and I see teams and committees being composed of persons all the time. But I could not find any usage sections at www.dictionary.com. Can you be more specific?

Incidentally, I don't object to using "comprise" to describe the relationship between a band and its members, but would use it in its undisputed primary sense and say "the band comprises John, Paul, George, and Ringo". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you scroll down the Dictionary.com pages you'll find examples of usage, first from The Daily Beast, and then historical examples. Tapered (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, I see. I thought you were talking about usage notes like some dictionaries have that give advice on how to use a word. Every usage note I've seen addressing comprised of vs composed of says just always use composed of because language purists consider comprised of to be a mistake and some of them will be your readers.

The selection of contemporary examples at dictionary.com seemed really weird to me at first, and then I realized that it's just doing a search (of just the Daily Beast, as far as I can see) for the literal words "compose" and "comprise" -- not any other forms of the word. Well, in its primary undisputed meaning (the whole comprises the parts), it's extremely rare to see exactly "comprise" because comprise is virtually always used as a verb in third person singular conjugation ("comprises", or "comprised" in past tense). So every example presented of "comprise" is in the disputed secondary (the parts comprise the whole) sense.

If you instead search any large corpus of English for "composed of" and "comprised of", you'll find them used in the same distribution between compositions of living entities and compositions of everything else. And I think you'll still see more "composed of" than "comprised of". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not very interested in the comprise/compose debate—since you seem to have a large posse behind you. I'll avoid comprise altogether here @ Wikipedia. I was especially annoyed with your edit because I had just removed some long-standing (truly grotesque to cultural history types) misinformation from the article. For structural reasons it was time consuming. While I'm not a defender of "comprise," I think any use of 'composed' as you used it in "Supergroup," is inappropriate. The word is often used in the context of geology, chemistry, and music. So it strikes me that its use to describe combinations of people is odd. The upshot is that I've changed the wording of the article entirely and added new references to corroborate the changed and original information. Tapered (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I noticed that you made some edits to Livevantage Corporation. I was wondering why the word LiveVantage redirects to a different page? I tried to fix that but I'm new so I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong. Could you possibly do this or let me know how I can? I think the redirect is confusing. Globe2trotter (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(You mean LifeVantage, not LiveVantage).

I've fixed it.

What happened was that there didn't used to be a LifeVantage Corporation article, so LifeVantage redirected to the article on Protandin, a LifeVantage product. Then someone created a LifeVantage Corporation article and made LifeVantage redirect to LifeVantage Corporation. Then someone determined the LifeVantage Corporation article was largely illegally copied material, so replaced it with a redirect to Protandin. Then a bot saw that LifeVantage redirected to LifeVantage Corporation, which redirected to Protandin and collapsed that to a redirect directly from LifeVantage to Protandin. Then someone reinstated the LifeVantage Corporation article minus the copyright violations, but LifeVantage was still redirecting to Protandin.

I changed the LifeVantage redirect back to fix this.

I note a lot of history of the LifeVantage Corporation article coming and going as people disagree about whether it's a legitimate encyclopedia article or an ad for LifeVantage, so this will probably happen again. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification. I really appreciate the time. I must admit, I had to read the paragraph twice to actually understand the redirects :). I see the LifeVantage Corporate page no longer exists. Has someone deleted it due to notability concerns? Since it redirects, I cannot see any deletion log. Globe2trotter (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't deleted technically; it was replaced with a redirect to Protandin, in a rare procedure where someone unilaterally decided it was not notable. See Talk:LifeVantage Corporation.

To access the redirect page instead of following the redirect, e.g. so you can see the history, click on the link in the "redirected from LifeVantage Corporation" message at the top of the Protandin page after you have been redirected. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your "comprised of"-fixing project and wondered whether there's any chance of semi-automating fixes for another very common error, "lead" for "led" (e.g. "this eventually lead to such-and-such"). Equinox ◑ 17:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

That would be pretty hard, since something actually has to parse the sentence and detect at least invalid verb conjugation and in some cases the actual sense of the sentence, to know it's the wrong word. Wikipedia search, which is what I use for "comprised of", doesn't do anything like that.

If we could automate that, there are a few hundred common errors just like it (where you need something smarter than a textual search) we could use it on, like "loose" for "lose", "women" for "woman", and "effect" for "affect". There are over a thousand common errors in an in-between class where the mere juxtaposition of words is a strong suggestion the wrong word was used, which means Wikipedia search can find them. See in Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/Grammar and miscellaneous. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bryan, I was wondering if you could help me out. How do I rid Wikipedia of the noxious and redundant "but are not limited to"? There are 2,190 pages with the phrases (though some of them may be in quotations, of course), so I can't do it by hand. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can't help much. I do all my copy editing manually; I don't think proposals for bots to make language usage changes are ever approved. This is a really easy edit (almost no thought required), but even at my top speed, it would probably take me more than ten hours. People use AWB for this kind of thing. The last time I looked at AWB, it wasn't fast enough for my purposes, and I instead created a program to generate a web page full of links. For example, I made one for [but are not limited to]. One could use this page with the terrific Chrome browser extension "linkclump" to open a bunch of these pages at a time and move through quickly with Chrome keyboard shortcuts, but that's the best I can do. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems that a lot of "Comprises of" are still in Wikipedia: check this link

I've gotten rid of the "Comprise of" and "Comprising of" and some "Comprised of" but "Comprises of" isn't good. Redditaddict69 07:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's the third most frequently added problematic use of "comprise" in Wikipedia. This one isn't even mentioned in dictionaries, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone defend it. It comes from the same kind of sound-alike confusion that turned "composed of" into "comprised of". In this case, "consists of" and "comprises" mean about the same thing, so people have merged the two into "comprises of". This is a thing mostly in India, by the way. Anyway, I regularly work the two most common forms, "comprised of" and "comprising of", but get to "comprises of" only infrequently, so that's why you see so many. (Still, there are about a thousand fewer than there used to be).

Keep up the good work. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've learned something today - thanks for this edit, and the link in the edit summary. I checked 'Fowler's Modern English Usage', and it supports your assertion.^[1] I shan't make that mistake again! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for telling me. I get tired enough of hearing from people who cannot accept that there could be something wrong with a phrase that they've always used and sounds fine to them, that I do enjoy hearing now and then from the (more numerous) people who can continually learn new intricacies of English. I know all the major English usage guides advise against using "comprise" to mean "compose", but I haven't yet put together an actual bibliography of them, so I appreciate the citation. I will put it somewhere in my essay. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rats! Thought I'd learned my lesson, but you got me again. :) GirthSummit _(blether) 22:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

I enjoy your commitment to removing the phrase "comprised of" from Wikipedia articles. Probably going to pop myself into the group of people who think it's a bit of a time waster, but commitment to anything is rare these days and to be commended. Please keep up the great work.

Griffibo1 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The anti-comprising Barnstar

Thank you for correcting the "comprise" word in Tieling High School. As an intermediate English-as-second-language speaker, who learned English almost solely by reading Wikipedia (never met one speaking English as first language in real life), I thought "comprise" is just a fancy word to express the meaning of including something. Finding someone with a commitment is especially hard these days. (sigh~) Tomskyhaha (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have not done the in-depth research you have on the pretentious "comprised of" turn of phrase. In French, the verb comprendre is used in a neighboring way (jusques et y compris = up to and including cf. Grévisse/Goosse. I wonder what you think about replacing all this pseudo-cleverness ("is comprised of" = are included in ) with the rather ordinary made up of. I would suggest this as most natural in at least US English. It's interesting to think how the most common meaning of _com-prendre is _trans-lated or _tra-duict with _under-stood. Languages are baffling, elles se seront toutes comprises. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The English "comprise" comes from that French word, and originally meant the same thing.

I do sometimes replace "comprised of" with "made up of", but people mean a variety of things when they say "comprised of" (which is one good reason not to use it - it's imprecise), and "made up of" is not the best for many of them. I also have had people object to "made up of" because it is too ordinary. I don't think that's a good argument, but "composed of" is a good compromise for those cases. If I had to pick one phrase to replace "comprised of", like for a computer doing simple search and replace, I would use "composed of".

Language isn't as baffling when you actually study linguistics and see what is going on. You find out that most people don't form sentences by assembling words using grammar and logic - they do it by copying phrases they've heard correlated with the thoughts they want to convey, applying fairly minimal rules to mix these into new phrases. "I would of done it" and "your going to like this" are idiotic if you use any simple grammar, but make perfect sense as copies of things heard. When you remember hearing "the whole is composed of the parts" and "the whole comprises the parts", it's not too hard to misremember it as "the whole is comprised of the parts" and not at all uncommon not to ask if it makes sense at the word level before using it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Giraffedata,

It's a great honor to make your acquintance! I think you are famous! as the editor who corrects all mistakes to the correct version comprised of. I have read about you already, yes. Thank you for your correction, a most auspicious day for us both, thanks again.

Armoracia (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to Atlantic Ocean has confused/concerned me. You changed "Thus, on one hand, ..." to "In these uses, ...". Which uses? The above / the below / all of these? And now that you've taken out "on one hand" what is the reader to think of "On the other hand"? Perhaps you could read the surrounding text to see how best to improve text, without introducing non sequiturs yourself? Shenme (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't "these" always refer to the immediately previous references? I meant to refer, in the second sentence of the paragraph, to the two uses stated in the first sentence of the paragraph. If you know of any less ambiguous way to say this than "these", do tell.

I believe "on the other hand" is commonly used without a prior "on one hand", with the first hand implied. But if it's awkward to you, I wouldn't mind changing it to "However".

I struggled to understand this paragraph as it was originally written because it had a "thus" clause which was not a conclusion that followed for me from the previous sentence, followed by another conflicting conclusion immediately after that. After reading it a few times, I think I figured out what it's trying to say and found wording that makes it flow better so it doesn't have to be read multiple times. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks! Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 22:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

0:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Could you tell me please why my article Houshmand Dehghan doesn't appear on Google's search results? I created it 3 days ago but when I google I don't find the page. With regards Hesaban (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know how Google works. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by حسابان (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Application server, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Server (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

(I hope I do this correctly - Wikipedia editing is a mystery to me.) Earlier today I was fuming about "was comprised of" in some documents at work. I looked online for support and I found the Medium article about your editing here. I am awestruck.

I work in science writing, and it can be frustrating trying to convince scientists that writing precisely is a meaningful part of the process. They'll understand a distinction on the level of parts per trillion but a subtle difference in wording is often considered nitpicking. I'd given up on both "comprised" and "utilize" (my other pet peeve) but you've given me new inspiration. Thank you!

If you enjoy reading, may I offer a recommendation in thanks? Your efforts immediately brought to mind one of my favorite classic stories, "The Man Who Planted Trees," by Jean Giono. The book is available at most bookstores and libraries, but there was also an audio version narrated by Robert J. Lurtsema with music by the Paul Winter Consort. (I see it on YouTube but Wikipedia won't let me link to it - sorry about that.) I can't offer higher praise than a comparison to Elzéard Bouffier! Best regards - Singing Clancy (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bryan, I'm Laura, the creator of Single Liquid Flow Battery article. I would highly appreciate and be very grateful to you if you can help to improve this article rather than deleting this. I'm actually an engineer from western Isles of Scotland and the creator of this page last year. I was a wiki editor for few years. I grew up in Knoydart, which is a remote peninsula and energy for our community came from a small hydro system rather than the main grid, and proud to be the first female electrical engineer to emerge from this remote community:-). The technology used in this article was first tested there and manage to save our community a fortune by not replacing the hydro turbine with a Diesel generator. I thought I should start a discussion about this technology and created this article after obtaining permission from the inventor. It's purely for non commercial purpose. I should admit that I do have an emotional bond with this technology as this was donated to the community and it genuinely helped the community. But I have no commercial intention to promote a company or a product. The technology it self was quite unique as it has only single liquid and had a very simple setup allowing less fortunate remote communities such as Knoydart to easily acquire and maintain it. Having a single liquid makes a massive difference! Other flow battery variants I had come across used two liquids requiring lots of space and lots of auxiliary equipment such as pumps, valves and sensors making it hard to maintain. When I learnt about this, I realised that it's NOT a Flow Battery as the cathode or the anode is not in flow or liquid form, which is the definition of "flow batteries". Instead the electrolyte and part of the cathode is converted to free flowing liquid, making this a different battery variant. I just noticed that a user called Jamie had edited this and then had deleted "commercially sensitive" section, which has triggered a curator to mark this as AFD. I contacted the user and asked what he did and specifically requested not to add anything which can be promotional or commercial in nature. I have reviewed this article again and have removed any new added sections which I thought was a bit promotional. Many Thanks in advance! --Laurawoods1979 (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the conflict, I rewrote your edit. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you please check the article Thunchaththu Ezhuthachan for grammar. It is about a Sanskrit translator + philosopher from India.

I can help you with any "factual" doubts.

VisWNThn (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I gave it a minor copy edit pass. There was very little to do.

I couldn't figure out what the section on the Nair caste theory was supposed to say; I don't know anything about the caste system, and the section seemed to contrast two castes, Chakkala Nair and Vattekattu Nair, but also to say they're the same thing. So I butchered it and it still doesn't make sense. Please fix it.

(I made a structural change to this section that required a significant reword to the first sentence - It needs to be in hierarchical form, so I added an introductory paragraph for the subsections rather than have the subsections introduce themselves). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank You from Kerala.

 

Note: never worry about the "caste" section. Nobody can fix it, I suppose!!

VisWNThn (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please verify/edit as appropriate.[5] -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done. This text used the disputed "constitute" usage (a form of "the parts comprise the whole") of "comprise", so I changed it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

An edit you recently made to the page Russian nihilist movement targeted a use of the phrase "comprised of" within a sourced quote, not within the body of the article, and also damaged one unrelated citation on the page. Thought I'd give you a heads-up that whatever automation you're using (assuming that is the case) may be faulty. Kindly, Oeqtte^[t] 05:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, User:Oeqtte. It wasn't exactly an automation issue, but just me reading too fast. There's a fix for it, anyway. I will tag the quotation so it won't happen again. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have recently learned what you are doing. As you may know, it is mentioned in a book, Word by Word by Kory Stamper.

This must have been said before, but I would like to add my comment that it is endless, ridiculous, and admirable.

I could never do it myself, but if I did I would eliminate the phrase despite the fact that, which can always be replaced by though, although, or even though.

With best wishes,

April 31st (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I did not know about Word By Word.

One of the nice things about being famous for this is that people have taken the time to tell me about their own pet peeves, which are often things I never knew about, and I've incorporated them into my own writing and Wikipedia editing. Two examples of things I learned: 1) "presently" does not mean "currently"; it means soon. 2) "graduate college" is a recent corruption. It always sounded more like archaic usage to me, but I see now that it is actually snowballing. Traditionally, we graduate the student and graduate from the institution.

Other times, the complainer seems to be under the impression that there are only two or three common errors like "comprised of" and just wanted to know if I knew about the others.  :-)

I never paid attention to "despite the fact that", but I guess it's a cousin to "due to the fact that", which I have simplified to "because" many times in Wikipedia.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing this cancerous phrase from my article. I didn't realize I had written it! I hate seeing stuff like that in articles... jp×g 04:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for stopping by. Many people who criticize this kind of copy edit don't realize the effect fractured English has on some readers, so they have trouble understanding why I say I'm improving Wikipedia. I've been accused more than once of editing Wikipedia to my personal taste, so I like to hear from others confirming they'd rather not encounter "comprised of" in a Wikipedia article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

...in a Mashable article celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Blackpink, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Headlining concerts section — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 03:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Paper9oll: Before adding templates to a talk page, please pause to think about the issue. Giraffedata's only recent edit to Blackpink was diff. That fixed some broken English but also fouled up a link. None of that is related to MOS, and the mistake was obviously a mistake. The correct procedure would be to fix the mistake and check a couple of Giraffedata's other recent edits to see if there was some peculiar problem. If so, add a polite note here pointing out that they might want to look at the issue. Why did you restore the broken English? Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: Hi there, I have manual reverted it. Notice was issued using RedWarn ... I didn't lookup the recent edits as I don't see the need to. Warning was auto-selected. Nevertheless, I agreed it's a mistake on Giraffedata part ... not sure what tools was used to made the changes but the error seem out of place. I myself uses tools to quicken some edits as well but I would double-check using the Show changes button first ... just saying. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 04:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know much about the Redwarn process, but I can tell you the most jarring thing about this post is that it is addressed to new editors. With 12 years and 80,000 edits behind me, any mistake I might have made could not be ascribed to inexperience. I actually thought someone had posted this sarcastically (emotions sometimes run high with English usage edits). So both the fact that the corruption in question has nothing to do with MOS and that I'm not a new editor makes me wonder what makes Redwarn issue a warning like this. I hope it isn't doing it a lot. And for that matter, if there is truly an MOS violation and a new editor, the template gives maddeningly insufficient information to identify the problem.

As for the link corruption, I'm going to call this a system error, because I can't think of any way I could possibly have submitted that change. The only tool I used was a web browser. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Giraffedata: Hi there, my apologies for issuing the wrong template. The link corruption looks like styling issues to me (at least in my POV) even though the MOS itself say it wasn't, which was why I selected the RedWarn "Quick rollback manual of style" button which in turn means the MOS template was selected and issued here. Not sure what is going on, maybe due to internet connection causing some issues to the edit hence causing the link corruption which was actually some part of reference ending up in there.

Anyway, thanks for your contributions to improving Wikipedia by changing comprised of. Happy editing and hopefully such issues don't occur again. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 06:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the "Reply All" podcast episode in which you were featured, at 25:09 you say, "One day one of these people who keeps struggling to get 'comprised of' declared okay, might succeed." Here your subject and verb disagree, and it's the type of disagreement I despise most - because no one thinks it's wrong! I've dragged many a social gathering down into the muck and mire of grammar debate on this topic. It's outlined nicely here: https://www.lawprose.org/lawprose-lesson-125-one-of-those-who-are-or-one-of-those-who-is/

I quite enjoyed the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofcarrotflours (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It looked wrong the moment I read it, because it's obvious that multiple people keep struggling. It's hard to maintain the whole structure of the sentence in your head while talking and my brain was obviously still thinking of the one person in the main clause who is struggling and succeeding when I was actually inside the subordinate clause about all the other struggling people. I probably realized as soon as I said it it was wrong. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree that one doesn't have to accept a dictionary's definition as proper usage, but what's the point of leaving in the essay the claim that dictionaries don't recognize "comprised of"? Fabrickator (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't follow. Where in the essay is there a claim that dictionaries don't recognize "comprised of"? I just looked it over, and I see a couple of claims that dictionaries didn't recognize it in the past, but otherwise it seems to be upfront about the fact that dictionaries do recognize it. If it claims otherwise, it's a mistake. The only major dictionary I know that does not recognize the compose usage of comprise is Chambers. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

My bad, I misconstrued which dictionary entry was being referred to. Fabrickator (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing "comprised of" from Carillon for the second time this year! It seems I copied the phrase back into the article today when I reverted a section's content. Your speed is impressive! Thrakkx (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's a first -- someone who undid one of my edits and then thanked me for redoing it! There are a few editors who bear the duty of defending the honor of the phrase "comprised of" by watching certain articles and restoring the phrase as soon as I reword it, so I try not to edit the same article more than once in 6 months. But still, these editors sometimes complain as if under attack. The present case must have been a reversion to some pretty old content, or it would have enjoyed the same respite. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

All the "unnecessary quotation of source" in Judiciary of Egypt that you didn't like are to prevent copyright violation, not because I like to quote. If you get rid of the quotation marks you have to paraphrase. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well then I hate to tell you this, but adding quotation marks has no effect on whether something is a copyright violation. Copyright law doesn't say you can't take credit for someone else's writing - it says you can't make a copy of someone else's writing without his permission.

So if you're copying a significant amount of the source, you have to rewrite it in your own words no matter what. But copying part of a sentence that says something in a generic way - the way anyone would say it - is fair use (allowed) under copyright law. Copyright protection covers only writing substantial enough to involve some creativity. I think some of your quoting may push the limit in allowable size, but in my opinion, it looked fair.

See Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#What_about_quotes?. In particular, note that quotes have to be something that works only as a quotation (like illustrating some person's opinion) and not something that could be said with original text in Wikipedia's own voice. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

i don't know why wiki allows this shut down this robot bi (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Don't know if you're serious, but I am not a robot and don't own any Wikipedia bots. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, your hypnotic scanning of Wikipedia with the single purpose of eliminating any and all use of the words “comprised of” is most definitely bot-like. There are plenty of positive words about it in the Comprised of article. Boscaswell talk 10:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll give you that, but then pretty much everything Wikignomes do is bot-like, especially when they are assisted by automation such as AutoWikiBrowser, and I don't hear Wikignomes equated with bots. Many times, people have proposed that we make an actual bot to replace "comprised of" with more accepted alternatives and I've always pointed out that my way involves reading and understanding the sentence in a way that a machine probably couldn't be programmed to do. (Some people persist, though, saying blindly replacing every instance not in a quotation with "composed of" would at least be a step in the right direction). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please, could you share and explain how your program works? --IsouM (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

It might be an overstatement that the program does the Wikipedia search, because the search is done by the Wikipedia servers; my program just requests it, the same way you would by typing in the Wikipedia search box.

I'm not sure what kind of explanation you want about how the program works; the essay where you presumably learned the program exists explains some of it. The rest is just invoking the wget program and basic text processing programming in Perl. The program is pretty specific to my task, so I don't think there's any point in publishing the code.

A more general tool to do the same thing -- search for articles containing a phrase and quickly edit those articles -- that most people use is AutoWikiBrowser. But one thing AWB won't do is exclude articles you've recently edited and need it again because some article owner has undone your work. It doesn't need that because very few wikignomes repeat the same searches day after day and do the whole list like I do. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Giraffedata. Like you, I'm bugged when I see "comprising of" in an article. When you edit such a phrase, please bear in mind:

• the lexical differences between comprise versus consist
• the inflected differences between consisting of (i.e., the continuative sense) versus comprised of (i.e., the perfective sense)

It seems your default edits turn "comprising of" into "consisting of," which corrects the grammar but at times is inconsistent with the perfective context. In such cases, comprised of is contextually accurate. Alternatively, simply comprising of might work unless a wholesale revision is in order.

Case in point: the lede for Volunteer fire department currently reads, "a fire department consisting of volunteers who perform fire suppression and other related emergency services for a local jurisdiction." The "consisting of" semantic is correct per Oxford (i.e., "being made up of") but not per Webster (i.e., 1. "lying in; residing in. 2a. archaic: existing; being"). Yet, Oxford waffles re comprise by defining it as "Consist of; be made up of" but including examples of usage entirely absent of the passive comprised of inflection. By contrast, Webster defines comprise as "to be made up of" and provides four examples of passive usage. Webster also provides this usage note:

Comprise has undergone a substantial shift in usage since first appearing in English in the 15th century. For many years, grammarians insisted that the usage of comprise meaning "to be made up of," as in phrases like "a team comprising nine players," was correct, and that comprise meaning "to make up," as in phrases like "the nine players who comprise the team," was not. This disputed use is most common in the passive construction "to be comprised of," as in "a team comprised of nine players." Until relatively recently, this less-favored sense appeared mostly in scientific writing, but current evidence shows that it is now somewhat more common in general use than the word's other meanings.

As for the Volunteer fire department lede, my knee-jerk instinct is to change it to "a fire department comprised of volunteers and other related emergency services..." Reason:

• the perfective comprised accords with related
• "a fire department that comprises volunteers..." is needlessly long.
• "a fire department that consists of volunteers..." is even longer.
• the continuative "a fire department comprising volunteers..." is semantically fine but contextually inconsistent with related
• the continuative "a fire department consisting of volunteers..." is semantically fine but contextually inconsistent with related

Long and short: When I make an edit in a case like this, I know it's bound to flag your algorithm's attention. In my mind, it's such a minor point that it's hardly worth upsetting you at best, or an edit war at worst. A better strategy, for concision's sake: "a fire department of volunteers and other related emergency services..." Really, consisting of and comprised of are typically superfluous vis-a-vis simply of. Cheers, and happy editing. Keep up the good work! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would not have thought of coordinating the perfection of "related" with that for the "comprising of" replacement. But I'm not sure I see any value in doing that, because the two actions aren't connected in that way. "Consisting" and "related" aren't parallel; they're about three levels of sentence structure removed from each other. Now, if it were "comprising of volunteers and related to a town", I'd see some (minor) value in using "comprised of" instead of "consisting of".

I like plain "of" in place of anything involving the word "comprise" wherever it works, but it doesn't here, because a "fire department" is not a simple unit of people. "A committee of volunteers" works, but "a fire department of volunteers" is about as sensible as "a shoe manufacturer of volunteers."

Thanks for the note about the evolution of comprise from Webster's. I thought I knew all the dictionaries' takes on the word, but I don't remember seeing this one. I know Webster's used to talk about how the backwards sense has been in use since the 1700s, and in common use since the 1960s, and note that it's unusual that this usage continues to be disputed after all this time. And I always had a sense that "comprised of" was common in scientific writing (where is appears to be an attempt to sound smart), but this is first time I've seen it reported as fact. I believe it's common in legal writing for the same reason. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Parallel discrepancy is always a no-no. Otherwise, whenever feasible, I favor consistency in sentence aspect regarding adjectival participles. E.g., "A team comprising veterans who are primed for success" is fine; so is "A team comprised of veterans who are priming for success." Yet, I'd prefer "A team comprising veterans who are priming..." or "A team comprised of veterans who are primed..." depending on whether I intended to highlight the perfective or continuative aspect of prime. Admittedly, few writers and fewer readers seem to care about such nuance. I never obsess about it, but I frequently wonder if a given passage of text truly reflects the aspect a writer intended.

Perhaps we disagree about the phrasing of "a department of volunteers." For me, it's analogous to "a band comprised of merry men" or "a pack consisting of wolves" or "a crowd made up of demonstrators." As always, context matters, and ellipsis is a useful writing tool. One thing's sure: I've never, in my entire writing career, spontaneously used the phrase, made up of. I routinely channel William Strunk in paring three words to two; paring two words to one, and deleting needless words. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Like many people, I expressed a strongly opposite, and perhaps irrational, reaction to having my work redacted. It was a kind of reaction people with less experience with the culture of Wikipedia are probably more liable to resonate with — and I was somewhat upset to have my usage of "comprised of" corrected to "composed of", considering it petty and pedantic. However, upon reading the essay you composed, I was positively swayed by your arguments, which were leagues more intellectual and thought-through than whatever notions I was still holding onto. It was pleasant to be corrected in such an intelligent and constructive way — so thank you kindly for your good work! The world would benefit from more diligent people like you. Kiril kovachev (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your remarks. I agree that a big part of why some people register objections to this work is a failure to grasp Wikipedia culture, in particular Wikipedia's Third Pillar. The crucial fact is that when I edit, I don't fix someone else's grammar; I fix an article. The sentence I'm editing belongs as much to me as to whoever wrote it, and when I change its wording I am not judging the writing skills of the editors who came before me; as far as I'm concerned, the sentence spontaneously generated. To prevent new editors from taking it personally when another editor has a different idea of how the article should read, there used to be a reference to the Third Pillar right next to the publish button, saying effectively, "Don't publish this if it would bother you if someone changed it." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please exercise due diligence in cases such as your recent edits to Polaribacter and Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Reading the cited sources before making ill-advised edits will help to avoid substantive inaccuracies spawned from mere semantic preferences. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 11:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The differences between the various ways of saying "consisting of" are so subtle that I doubt anyone could call any one of them inaccurate if another is accurate. Lacking proper connotations or clarity, maybe. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Rhetorical questions in the alternative: Putting aside instances in the abstract, (3) If you doubt anyone would call a contextual use of consisting of inaccurate, how closely did you read not only my original post in this thread but also the linked articles and their pertinent cites? (2) If you think the differences are so subtle, why bother making such edits in the first place? (1) How closely, if at all, do you think your editing evinces an appropriate sense of circumspection and caution, sprinkled with a generous dose of MOS:VAR, rather than a bot-like application? Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you please be more careful with your edits? This is the third or fourth time you've made this change on this page, and each time, I've pointed out it's a direct quote. It's literally in the "quote" parameter of the citation template. Not sure if you're doing these edits manually or via a bot, but either way, you need to be more careful about direct quotations. All the best. Bertaut (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, Bertaut and thanks for taking the time to point it out. I edit manually and look out for quotes, but I do sometimes make this mistake and this is one of those articles where it's not easy to see after searching for "comprise" that it's a quote. I have tagged it so this will never happen again. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated. Also, I just read over my own message; sorry if it comes across as aggressive - I certainly didn't intend it that way. Bertaut (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your edit to Lawrence H. Keeley. I just started this article (my first one!) a couple days ago and have been trying to improve it, so I am grateful for your correction of my prose. Reading through your...erm...manifesto was both educational and amusing, and I am simply amazed by your commitment to this work. Nmarshall25 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Saw your recent contribution to The Storm Before the Calm, and I'm wondering what exactly the purpose of it is. The only difference I can see is that you added the template, but not what effect it has on the article. I'm not gonna remove it or anything but I was just wondering what I'm missing. What is it changing and why does it need to be there? QuietHere (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's a little nonobvious. What I added, by the way, is a tag, rather than a template. A template is a Wikipedia page; a tag is the {{xxx}} thing in another page that invokes a template. This sic tag has no effect on the article as seen by a reader -- that's what the "hidden=y" part of it is for. It serves two purposes: 1) if someone is searching for instances of "comprised of" as part of a maintenance task to replace it with less disputed language (such as "composed of"), that editor will see immediately that this is a faithful quote and thus leave it alone. I nearly made the mistake of editing that quotation before I tagged it. A mistake like that is likely to corrupt the quotation forever unless someone who is familiar with the source happens to be watching for changes. 2) A search for "comprised of" in articles can be done in a way that doesn't even find instances tagged like this. There are several hundred uses of "comprised of" in a quotation in Wikipedia, so it helps a lot to exclude them from the search.

There is some information about my use of that tag in this section of my essay about "comprised of".

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just heard of your mission for the first time a week or so ago, and today I encountered this: the article on the Faraday effect has, I believe, a mistaken use of "comprise" when it says "In a material, this electric field causes a force on the charged particles comprising the material." The charged particles are part of the material, and this would be the wrong way around to use the word, wouldn't it? I am a bit too uncertain about correct usage to make the edit myself, so I defer to the veteran here. 81.167.52.66 (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's right. The whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole.

I have changed it to "the charged particles that compose the material". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found this truly fascinating article on the grammaticality of "comprised of". 2620:46:8000:48:E04D:3769:F9C6:E23C (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I hadn't seen that page. The page, though, is not an article on the grammaticality of "comprised of", but a Wikipedia essay that urges editors not to make grammar changes to articles where the existing usage is one that many people accept. It includes "comprised of" in a list of examples of usage that some people accept and others don't, so someone might want to remove it, but should not.

It's not a great example, by the way, because the main argument the essay gives for not removing a usage to which some people object is that you have to replace it with something to which other people object, so you have to make some call as to who is more right. For example, you cannot change singular "they" to "he" or "he or she" without offending someone. But "comprised of" is unusual in that there are plenty of alternatives that don't offend anybody.

In any case, I personally disagree with the essay's fundamental point that Wikipedia should use multiple grammars (styles) and what is essentially support for article ownership in giving certain editors control over the grammar of a given article.

FWIW, I'm sure there are people who remove "comprised of" because it is a pet peeve of theirs, but I am not one of them. I am not particularly peeved by the phrase, and I wouldn't edit Wikipedia to assuage a peeve anyway. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your self-deluding claim that there exists no offense in "fixing" this "error", see the following passage:

"This argument also ignores that writers are frequently annoyed by having their language "corrected" when by their own view the usage in question is not wrong. In fact enforcing one's pet peeves on others frequently cause conflicts, that are potentially disruptive among editors - so no choice is neutral."

Stylistic pluralism is important given the fact that Wikipedia is often used as a large part of the English language's corpus, and poorly attempting to unify it not only removes any sense of elegant variation, but also gives false impressions for any descriptivist analysis.

Regarding your point on "article ownership," WP:OWNBEHAVIOR explicitly states that maintaining article or cross-article consistency in stylistic traits is not an instance of trying to extend ownership over an article.

However, I do appreciate the information that you are not actually bothered by the phrase, as it informs me that you are slightly less obsessive than I had originally took you for. 2620:46:8000:48:382C:A13B:892:4B0B (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I did not say nobody is offended by the fix. I know some are because they have told me so on my talk pages over the years. I mention this in my essay on the project.

What I said is that nobody is offended by the alternative phrasings. Nobody claims that "composed of" is not good English. Nobody is uncomfortable encountering "consists of" in a Wikipedia article.

I did miss that sentence that connects the non-neutrality of the act of editing with the neutrality of the resulting wording. I've always said the current text of the article is all that matters; how it got that way is irrelevant.

The ownership behavior I'm talking about is not maintaining consistency. The pet peeve article doesn't mention consistency as a reason not to address pet peeves. But it does mention giving original or main contributors control of article style, and that flies in the face of Wikipedia philosophy. Once you contribute, the work is not yours anymore. An anonymous newcomer has as much say in what the article says and how it says it as the person who wrote the article and has been updating it for years. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for closing, but you didn't sign it. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yikes. Fixed. Thanks. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

You made an edit to Charlie Brown Jr. yesterday while it was under a Guild of Copy Editors notice. You may not have come across this notice before, it reads: This article is currently undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. Although I always appreciate editors who correct grammar and word usage, in this case you cost me more than 30 minutes of work. Perhaps you can join the current GOCE drive and help fix some of these articles? Rublamb (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that; I didn't see the notice. I'll pay more attention in the future.

I have to say, though, it's hard to see how a one-word edit conflict could cost more than 30 minutes of work.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Giraggedata,

you reverted my deletion of the search for one in the same from the list of common misspellings. According to your edit summary, you thought I deleted that because this grammar error is in a large number of cases already not present? Maybe my edit summary "one in the same is also in a large number of cases fine" wasn't clear enough - I've deleted that because this search creates a large number of false positives. E.g. the first 50 entries of this search are all false positives. According to WP:LCM: The guiding rule should be to include words if they are more likely to be incorrect spellings than correct spellings. Thus, I like to delete this again, what do you think? (BTW, I'm currently in the process of checking this list from top to bottom, therefore most entries above this one currently generate only a few true positives because I have corrected the others.) --Cyfal (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, I see. Yes, going by the edit summary I thought you were just eliminating it because the target isn't always wrong. (Something like "primarily false positives" would have been clear to me). I agree this entry isn't practical for finding the target error. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, I removed that entry again now, and I will try to improve my edit summaries in future. --Cyfal (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I noticed that you reverted one of my uses of "Comprised of". I've been in a rabbit hole since then and found out that you primarily focus on removing "Comprised of" in Wikipedia. I've actually noticed that a lot more articles contain unremoved instances of "comprised of"- in fact, I've removed a few cases just now.

Just wanted to bring that to your attention in case.

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, they're added every day, and I remove them every few days, but there are a few editors with some kind of attachment to this phrase that I can't explain who watch articles and put it right back, and I'm not interested in fighting over something this trivial, so it stays that way for a while. In fact, there is one very active editor who maintains hundreds of articles and actively inserts "comprised of" into articles, apparently playing a game with me after he lost a related RfC over his efforts to preserve the dignity of the phrase. I chose not to join that battle. So if you're fixing "comprised of" in articles about New Jersey government, you'll probably meet him.

Oh, and as for "literally everywhere", you have to put this in perspective. There are over five million articles in English Language Wikipedia and most of them don't contain the phrase. In fact, if you search for the more accepted alternatives "consists of" and "composed of", you'll find many times as much. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Had to chuckle when I read "there are a few editors with some kind of attachment to this phrase that I can't explain" - I mean, are you really so self-unaware that you don't see the parallel here? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, I know whenever I say that that some people will think there is a parallel, because many times people have said they believe I have some kind of hatred of the phrase "comprised of".

The hatred thing is a mistake -- I have a whole essay in which I lay out objective reasons not to use this phrase in Wikipedia (and it doesn't matter whether those reasons are valid; the point is that I have them and can state them). I have nothing like that from people who change "composed of" back to "comprised of" while arguing that they're the same thing and it doesn't really matter anyway.

Because I stand out among Wikipedia copy editors in that I refrain from editing hundreds of other common usages that I think weaken Wikipedia and focus on just the one, I have been asked many times by reporters just where my angst toward "comprised of" comes from, and I can sense their deflation when I tell them I kind of picked it at random, and there's no story there. I've been tempted to make up some story of childhood trauma connected to the phrase just so as not to disappoint them. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

In other words... you have an attachment to removing the phrase which no one else can explain. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your comments are drifting away from the purpose of Wikipedia. If you have something to say regarding improving the encyclopedia, say it. If you want to amuse yourself poking an editor, use another website. Do not reply unless it regards improving the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for your efforts!

Caspar42 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's a popular tweet talking about you, so please expect a sudden influx people reaching out (especially at your essay). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see the vandalism and abuse that tends to accompany wide publicity has begun. I don't usually know the source of such surges of interest, so thank you for telling me about it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're also on the front page of hacker news so, brace yourself:) Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of” | Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35838180 Sica07 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I semi-protected User:Giraffedata/comprised of for a month. Let me know if you want that undone, or if further nonsense needs to be repelled. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Johnuniq. Much appreciated. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Spanish language on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Daily Campus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Campus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

depths of wikipedia on Twitter: "Some of the first edits to the OceanGate Wikipedia were by someone who works for OceanGate. We can't see them bc they were removed for being copyright violations. But we DO know that they included "comprised of" bc the "comprised of" crusader removed the phrase the next day" Schierbecker (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161685315

Please follow from here, i look for native speakers since page locked and locals not interested...thanks in advance 93.140.148.242 (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161570920

I meant this part especially (thanks again) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.148.242 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry; I had technical problems and got lost before. I've gone over that section now; I didn't find much wrong with it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

2022–23 Indian State Leagues I added few leagues but cant fix them in letter-region order, try it as again not too many locals bothered...appreciate 93.140.62.48 (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Regarding my edit on the RFC procedure: What, then, is the exact method to "choose category" before inserting the tag? DonFB (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I knew there had to be something unclear in the instructions for you to want to make that edit, but I'm not sure what it is, because the "method" of choosing is a mental process, like choosing a color of socks to wear to a party. What you wrote is analogous to "put on the socks, then choose a color". I think step 3 (choose a color and insert a tag) used to just say "insert a tag" and someone said, "but how do I know what the category in the tag is?", so someone added "choose a category" as a way of saying, "just pick one".

Is it unclear that you're supposed to pick a category (or multiple categories)? Is it unclear how to pick one? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The instructions seem to imply there is some kind of semi-automatic method that will magically insert the rfc tag and category, rather than, as it appears, a user must copy-paste and/or manually enter the information using keyboard and mouse/finger. Here is a suggestion for revising the first sentence of paragraph 3 to make the instructions clearer: "3. At the top of the new talk page section, insert the {{rfc}} tag and add one or more categories." Will you accept that edit? DonFB (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

That still has the steps wrong. The categories are part of the tag, so once you've inserted the tag, there's nothing left to add; inserting the tag is the entire step. How about, "3. At the top of the new talk page section, insert an {{rfc}} tag. The tag must list one or more categories as parameters, for example {{rfc|econ}}. Choose those categories as follows ..." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

That looks good. But instead of the phrase, "Choose those categories as follows", the text immediately following the example should be: "The category must be given in lower case. See below for the categories and their meanings. If no category seems..." How's that? DonFB (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good. I have made that change. If you want to work on this further, I suggest continuing the discussion on the page's talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

thanks! Kingturtle = (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Indian_Super_League

stadium for team punjab should be same as on main league article (stadiums), delhi is correct; if see fastest please fix 93.143.120.79 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just thought you would be humored to know that the Chicago Manual of Style agrees with you.

"The phrase is comprised of, though increasingly common, remains nonstandard. Instead, try is composed of or consists of" -- 17th ed. Chicago Manual of Style, p. 320.

Also thanks for fixing my Being You: A New Science of Consciousness article! 123Writer ^talk 11:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I've added that to my essay, right next to Fowler's.

It always amazes me how many people think I made the comprised of issue up. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

While one can debate the usage of "comprised of" vs "consists of", please don't delete said phrase without replacements, thereby altering the sentences' sense, which I had to reinstate manually everywhere. Thank you. Robert Kerber (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see you're talking about the simplification of "government organisation comprised of authors" to "government organisation of authors". I believe the sense is the same (I do this edit a lot with teams, committees, groups, etc. of people), but if you don't, I'm happy with longer alternatives such as what you have written. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indian Super League stadiums, VYBK has wrong capacity. Please fix due to slow locals, as well as sudden insisting of another user who strangely didn't do it on all needed pages (HIM, older edits): (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1167443808) 93.140.103.186 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The stadium capacity currently in the article conforms to what the source that the article cites says; your edit would make it not conform, so it would not be an appropriate edit. If you can provide a more reliable source for your figure, we could possibly update the article with both the number and a new citation. (Note that Wikipedia's job as an encyclopedia is not to give correct information, but to summarize available reliable sources). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the KIYO*SEN article tweak, I meant to correct it and remove the "of" from "comprising of" but missed it. Probably also easier to read using the more obvious "consisting of". That whole sentence is a bit 'run-on' so I might revisit it soon. Chris W. (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the reason I find "consisting of" better than "comprising" here is that the direct object of "comprise" should be a list (or description) of things contained, whereas the direct object here is a single thing: a collaboration. "comprising Otaka, Kawaguchi, and guest artists" would work, but this sentence says something else.

And as long as we're nitpicking, a run-on sentence is technically one that is ungrammatical because clauses are pushed together without punctuation or conjunctions, e.g. "I told him not to come he came anyway" or even "I told him not to come and he came anyway." (The latter needs a comma). What you're talking about is just an excessively long sentence, or as I like to call it, an exhausting sentence. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your fix of my grammar on Corben Bone. I hadn't realized "Comprised of" was incorrect and now I'll make sure to avoid it. Your dedication is admirable, keep up the good work! American Money (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I appreciate you correcting my grammar in my two pages encompassing the 151st and 153rd Mechanized Brigade's of Ukraine. However, when you remove these words from people's articles it would be nice if you could potentially replace it with other words instead - I see no reason as to why you can't, especially since it would allow the article to remain sensical. Your suggestions to other people such as "consisting of" or "comprising" or "composed of", would be better to substitute these words.

I am not lashing out, I just find it sort of frustrating having to go back and tweak grammatical errors yet again because it was removed - but could have easily been replaced. Once again, I'd just like to thank you again.

Happy New Years! Davomme (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I guess you're talking about where I changed "... would most probably have to make do with old, vulnerable, and plentiful vehicles stockpiled in the Ukrainian Armed Forces arsenal -- comprised of BMPs or MT-LB armored tractors and trucks." I simply removed the words "comprised of". To me, that's the simplest way to say what this sentence means to say, and is grammatical. You preferred replacing "comprised of" with "composed of". That's not really right, because "composed of" is supposed to list components of a whole, as in "an axe is composed of a handle and a head", whereas "vehicles" is not a whole. If you think extra words are needed here, I think you should use "consisting of", and in that case, you can also replace the dash with a comma to make it flow better. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm a fan of yours and your mission to the extent that makes sense to say, and the first time I wrote 'comprised of', I swore to myself I'd never make that mistake again. Six months later, I have probably paused and then backspaced it dozens of times, though I am glad it's largely been erased from my vocabulary. This time it fell through the cracks again, and all I can do is try to be better going forward. Alas. Remsense诉 01:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you're making the effort; the rate at which people are writing "comprised of" in Wikipedia has definitely declined since I started correcting it. But I really don't mind cleaning it up. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course! Thanks for making me think more deeply about the language I use. Remsense诉 19:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I wanted to thank you for your level headed contributions to the discussion in the Gibraltar article. The discussion has gone on with a couple of comments more after your questions and suggestions, but I am afraid we are in a stalemate with two opposite opinions about whether to include the information or not.

It would be great if you could drop by, take a look at the new comments, and say what you think. Thank you very much in any case (it is not easy to get comments from not too involved editors in an article that sometimes creates too much controversy).-- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saw this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashley_Blaker&diff=prev&oldid=1231930743]. I love your efforts, so apologies for asking, but isn't this a legitimate case of, as you put it in your essay, the whole comprising the parts? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is, except that the original wording doesn't have the whole comprising the parts, but rather comprising of the parts. Comprise takes a direct object, so the words "comprising of" never properly appear together; it comes from people mixing "consisting of" and "comprising", since they mean about the same thing. I changed "The first series was broadcast in 1999, comprising of 13 episodes on digital channel Play UK" to "... consisting of 13 episodes ...", but "... comprising 13 episodes ..." would also work. Because the "on digital channel Play UK" seems to be more about describing the series than describing what episodes are contained, I thought "consisting of" was slightly better. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was horrified I'd made such a horrendous error, but gratified to find I didn't. I really didn't, lol. I'm with you on this. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As someone who thinks there must be one best choice of word for each scenario, the "comprised of" was an interesting read. Wiki6995 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply