User talk:Giraffedata

If you came here to discuss an edit related to the phrase "comprised of," please see my user subpage about these edits first. Bryan Henderson (talk)

2008

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 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

2009

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 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

2010

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 (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No FPU in Vortex86?

Hi, thank you for adding the information about the Vortex86, but I don't quite understand how you conclude it has no fpu when your /proc/cpuinfo says

fpu             : yes

They also write on the product page that the Vortex86 family integrates a high-performance processor that supports x86 instruction set with 3 integer units, 3-way superscalar architecture, and a fully pipelined floating point unit. --Mewtu (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those product lines that confuses everybody because the first product in the family didn't have a name distinct from the family itself. I.e. "Vortex86" is both the family that includes Vortex86SX, Vortex86DX, etc. and the original product, which was just called (and apparently still is) Vortex86. The original Vortex86 doesn't have an FPU. The vortex86.com page, being largely a marketing effort, refers to the currently offered product in the line, which does have an FPU. Looking at the Wikipedia article before my modifications, it shows that the second product in the line, Vortex86SX doesn't have an FPU, and while it doesn't say one way or the other about the original Vortex86, it's easy to assume from that that it didn't either. Personally, I recalled that information from numerous online discussions and data sheets for Vortex86-based products that I perused before I acquired one. I don't have URLS handy.

So my edit is wrong; it purports to describe the entire family, but really describes only the original Vortex86. And I'm not qualified to write about anything else because the details I wrote are not exposed by official documentation and I haven't found any other source either. I rather hoped someone who knows about those would fix the parts that don't apply to the other models. I can at least fix the FPU bit, though, and I will if you don't first.

My /proc/cpuinfo says there's an FPU because Linux emulates it. That's probably worth a mention too.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lake Erie

Yes, I agree with your editing choice, that "consisting of" is superior to "comprised of", but in a quote, aren't we supposed to keep the original wording??? But, again, I agree -- you're a better writer than the original reporter. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. :-) (On the other hand, if the error is basic enough, like a misspelling or missing word, it is our responsibility to translate the quote to standard English). I have restored that quote and added a sic tag so no editor will make that mistake again.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention so I know I need to pay better attention.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate working with excellent writers such as yourself. Wikipedia needs good writers. My writing skill level is somewhat stuck in a "borderline competent" category; I try to read poetry to improve but I find myself using tried-and-true but somewhat boring constructions. I'm competent enough as a writer to recognize good writers like you. My biggest writing challenge here at WP is: how do I make factual stuff here interesting? This is something I always wonder about. I hope the Lake Erie revamp wasn't too boring. I would have LOVED to have found a picture of the Snakehead fish with the teeth staring forward but I'm flummoxed by rules about uploading Flickr pictures & such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like you're going for a different quality of writing than what I have. I'm a technical writer and aim to convey information as efficiently and unambiguously as possible. That doesn't necessarily make it fun to read and sometimes has the opposite effect. And it's something you can learn from books, because people actually do studies of comprehension. (For example, that's how we know active voice is better than passive and singular is better than plural). Here's an example I always use of a dichotomy between creative writing and technical writing: elegant variation. An article is less tiresome if it varies the words it uses for something. But technical writing texts tell you for least confusion, you need to use the same word for the same thing always. Bryan Henderson (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I just looked over your "comprised of" project. Cool! Yes I agree with you about technical writing, simplicity, exact words, active vs passive. Didn't know about singular being better than plural, will make a note of that, thanx. About writing, I'm always trying to learn to do it better; I see it as a craft not as art. And I think we'd agree that good writing depends greatly on what the purpose is; in a poem, the idea is to open up the possibilities of experience and sensation, while in an encyclopedia, the idea is to give facts. So ideally the best in Wikipedia is short, simple, exact, well-organized, so readers can find facts quickly, so the focus shouldn't be on the writing quality itself (then it's failed because flowery writing is distracting) while in a poem, perhaps, the writer might want readers to hear the rhythm of the rhymes. What I try to do here is hunt for really cool facts, cool quotes, stuff that interests me, and hopefully that will bring readers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Question - rounds comprising the selection

Hey, I just noticed the essay on the use of "comprised of" in your subpage and I find it very interesting. I would like to ask your opinion on the use of "comprising" in the articles that I often edited. In the last sentence in the first paragraph of the NBA Draft articles, for example in the 1984 NBA Draft, there is a sentence "The draft consisted of 10 rounds comprising the selection of 228 players." I wonder if the use of comprise is correct in this sentence. Initially, I used the sentence "The draft consisted of 10 rounds with 228 players selected." in the older version of this article, but during the Featured List review, a reviewer changed the sentence and use comprise. I'm not a native English speaker and I rarely use the word comprising in a sentence, therefore until now I still think the sentence looks a little weird. What do you think about this, and do you have any suggestion on the words that are better suited for this sentence? Thanks! — MT (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"10 rounds comprising the selection of 228 players" is correct, but not good writing. It is correct because "to comprise" means "to include," especially exhaustively. One can think of selection of 228 players as a mass of selection, all of which is what makes up those 10 rounds. However, I suspect the writer here actually intended one of the common misuses of "comprise" meaning "constitute," and is really trying to say the 10 rounds are the selection of 228 players. In any case, it's a bad sentence because 1) "comprise" is a more complex word than is needed here, and "selection" is nominalization (verbs are better than nouns). I like yours better, but it still has the verb in passive voice (selected), and I would try to put it in active voice. To do that, I'd have to know better what the sentence intends so say (that's one of the points of active voice, by the way -- it usually conveys more information). If the point is that 10 rounds were designed to select 228 players, I would say, "10 rounds to select 228 players." If the point is that the 10 rounds ultimately selected 228 players, I would say, "10 rounds that selected 228 players" or "10 rounds and selected 228 players."

Bryan Henderson (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The 10 rounds was designed to select 230 players (23 teams x 10 rounds) from a pool of eligible players, which could be hundreds. But in reality, only 228 players were selected because some teams may forfeit some of their selections due to various reasons. So the second point, that the 10 rounds ultimately resulted in the selection of 228 players, is correct. However, using "The draft consists of 10 rounds that selected 228 players" still seems a little weird, because in my opinion, the sentence implied that the draft selected 228 players, where actually the 13 teams selected 228 players during the draft. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions, I'll try to figure out some other alternative sentences that avoid the use of "comprise" but still have the same meaning as I intended. Any more suggestion would be greatly appreciated but I won't take more of your time on this. Thanks! — MT (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comprised

Hi

I realise that you are on a mission, however I would like you to explain why you are changing "was comprised of" to "comprised"

I ask as I use what I perceive to be the standard past tense as per OED, the particular group is no longer in existence and comprised is not a stand alone when used in the past tense, as far as I am aware. If this is an ENGVAR then please can you point me to the relevant comparison.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"comprised" in "was comprised of" is not past tense (or even a verb - the verb is "was"), it is an adjective (made out of a past participle, though). In this usage, "comprise" means "compose." Dictionaries list this usage because lots of people use it, but lots of other people don't accept this as valid English, which is why it is good to avoid it. I have an exhaustive discussion of the issue at here.

I don't believe there is any regional variation in how much "compose" is accepted as a definition of "comprise."

I don't find anything in the dictionary entry you link that suggests "comprised" can't stand on its own. The first definition shown for "comprise" is "consist of," so "comprised" would be the obvious form to mean "consisted of." If the group were around today you would say "the group comprises a, b, and c." Since it is in the past, we say "the group comprised a, b, and c."

Bryan Henderson (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say I agree with you on referring to things in the present tense, or in a current time-frame.

The OED entry says comprise is a verb. It then gives (be comprised of) and the example "documents are comprised of words"

So if the document is comprised of words and is no longer in existence "the document was comprised of words"

It then gives usage and states that when used in the passive it is "more or less synonymous", not that it is exactly interchangeable with, nor does it give its usage in the past tense, but I would go with you on those, just not the p.p.

Macmillan - clearly here there is "be comprised of: The course is comprised of ten core modules.

Merriam Webster p. 274 - Column 1 deals with the issue quite well.

In conclusion: I would have accepted that there was some merit to a case for the dropping of "was", but I cannot accept the dropping of both "was" and "of".

As a matter of interest I include this link [1], as I said, only of interest - I would of course be one of the 65% :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying you think "the document comprised of words" is OK? That's the only usage that your OED reference specifically says is not OK. It says, "'the property comprises of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen', is regarded as incorrect." That is the same as, "the document comprised of words," but in the present tense. Incidentally, I found a few thousand instances of that very construction in Wikipedia, so I know it too is in common usage, but I know that it is far less accepted than "is comprised of." I have never seen anyone (unless you're doing it now) defend "it comprises of" or "it comprised of." I think "it comprised of" is about as accepted as "effect" for "affect" (as in "that won't effect the price").

On the adjective/verb/passive/participle matter: the fact that the dictionary says it is a verb doesn't mean it isn't also an adjective. Essentially any verb can be an adjective in its participle forms. For example, I'll bet OED says "bake" is a verb, but in "I ate some baked salmon," it is clearly an adjective. Though I think it an error for the dictionary to say "in the passive," I can see now that in "the document is comprised of words," you can view it as a passive voice verb instead of an adjective. But I'm sure that's not usually the meaning the writer has in mind -- you have to imagine some unspecified agent acting on this document by comprising (=composing) it from words. In other constructions, it isn't even possible to think of it as a passive voice verb ("I'm holding a document comprised of words.").

I agree with the OED's statement that "the document is comprised of words" is not exactly identical to "the document comprises words." In fact, the writer can mean any of various subtly different things, and that is one of the weaknesses of that word choice: Because of the way it developed, being essentially used in error, it doesn't have any precise meaning. When I edit the phrase, there are half a dozen constructions I use in its place depending on what I think the writer meant to say.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No I am not saying that. The OED is saying "are comprised of", I am suggesting that is synonymous with "were comprised of". I have already said that I agree with your points on present tense usage in my previous comment.

This came to light during my copyedit on an article when I saw your correction to a previous copyedit I had done. I really just wanted to make sure that I was going to make a correct change and once I read your other page on the long discussions and essay on the matter I wondered which it should really be.

I am thinking that the replacement will depend on context, your discussion has indeed clarified the matter on other uses though for which I am grateful. Copyediting is not easy to do correctly :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comprised of, emend and crusades

Hello there. I have some comments on your amendments to Stone Age. I left them on the discussion page. No big deal, I'm not changing it back. Nothing to worry about. I think though you should hear my opinion. Sincerely,Dave (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

More Comprised

Hi Bryan,

You recently made an edit to Frieda Belinfante, which I did a lot of work on. I certainly appreciate your efforts to improve the writing of the wiki, and mine specially. I think your edits on this page make it read better. Don't stop just because some people don't like it. Laguna greg (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement. It's easy (for some people) to give too much weight to individual negative comments, and I have been trying especially hard to keep them in perspective in this project. Bryan Henderson (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw one of your edits, and though I didn't disagree with the new wordage, came here to link you to the wiktionary definition to suggest that it may have not been necessary. I then noticed, and was enriched by, your user subpage! Thanks for your investment in doing things the Right Way. :-) ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your change of 'comprised of' in the Adbhuta Ramayana article. Happy to learn something new, and very much appreciate your dedication to precision of the language.Beecher70 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comprises in Rubber Guard

Thought I would leave you a comment after being thoroughly educated in the quest you have set up for yourself, thanks for enlightening this humble beginner, and good luck with your ambitious project. As a side note, I ran the sentence you edited from the rubber guard article through a standard spell check/grammar check and that tiny change increased detectable readability and level considerably. Thanks again. Jdcollins13 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Life

Hi.....question...please don't take it soo harsh because I don't know you...but honestly, do you have a life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.98.27 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a serious question, but I'll assume it is. My life is rather full. I have a full time job and numerous hobbies in addition to copy editing Wikipedia. But not much of my non-job time is spent doing conventional pastimes (i.e. from the approved lifestyle list) such as attending baseball games, wine tasting, travelling, painting, and mountain biking. Bryan Henderson (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Civil Parish of Winterbourne

An article that you have been involved in editing, Civil Parish of Winterbourne , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bilayer Graphene "comprised of"

Many thanks for your correction on that article. I've been meaning to expand the content, but this might be quicker to address in the short term: I think it may be better to change "consisting of" to "composed of," based on reading some stuff from your user page - thoughts? Zak.estrada (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is "Bilayer graphene ... is a material consisting of two layers of Graphene that are sometimes separated by a dielectric."

My view of "composed of" is that it should be followed by a simple and complete list of the components. In this sentence, the description implies two or three components, but the third component (dialectric) is really just implied as a modifier ("separated by") of the first two components (the graphene layers). So it isn't a simple a list of components. For me to like "composed of" here, it would have to look more like, "... is a material composed of two layers of graphene and sometimes a dialectric separating them." "Consists of" is what I go to for more complex descriptions.

This is, of course, a far finer distinction than between "comprised of" and either of alternatives.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Chomping at the bit

Why did you add "sic" to the word "chomping" in the phrase "chomping at the bit" on this article? Thanks. TWCarlson (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, I had some reason to believe that was an actual quote, but a reader/editor could think it was a mistake in Wikipedia because the actual saying is "champing at the bit." Chomping means biting down hard on something, whereas the metaphor here is what a horse does when it wants to go but is being held back by the reins: it gnashes its teeth in a chewing fashion, straining against the bit in its mouth, which is called "champing." The bit is between the horse's teeth, so it can't chomp down on it (and even if it could, it would be "on" the bit instead of "at" it).

Bryan Henderson (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks -- I learned something new today because of you.

What do you think about this: "Chomping at the bit" is a commonly used (though incorrect) phrase that probably wouldn't be seen as a typo by a reader, in my opinion. A lot of quotations contain small errors, and the standards are lower for quotations than for article content, so I think "sic" should be reserved for things like misspellings and gross factual errors, lest it interrupt and distract from the flow. It really comes down to a difference between prescriptive and descriptive language.

Feel free to let me know how you feel about all that stuff I just said. Thanks for your diligence! TWCarlson (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are two reasons I think the article is better with the "sic."

1. It would be commonly suspected of being a typo, because so many people have never heard the word "champing" that, seeing "champing at the bit," an editor is likely to "correct" an apparent typo to "chomping." In fact, before I added "sic," I checked the history to make sure that hadn't happened. An editor can even translate it unintentionally when retyping it.
2. Letting an error like this stand unmarked is sort of like not telling a friend his fly is open. A person who keeps reading "chomping at the bit" without any indication that it's wrong will believe that's how everybody says it. I can imagine someone reading my explanation of the phrase above and thinking, "Oh no! I said 'chomping at the bit' last week in a job interview. That guy must think I'm a hillbilly. Why didn't anyone tell me?"

There's actually a third option, which is probably what I would do if it were my own byline: translate the quote into standard English: Say the guy said "champing." We translate from French into English; we translate from incorrect spellings to correct ones; we translate fractured English by non-native speakers into English; since the word choice here has nothing to do with the reason for quoting, there is no need to preserve the mistake.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And a comment about prescriptive vs descriptive, because a lot of people seem to misunderstand the relationship between those two. First of all, I've always heard it as prescriptive and descriptive grammar, not language; it makes more sense that way.

Prescriptive and descriptive grammar are not schools of thought or philosophies or beliefs and they don't conflict with each other. They're just two kinds of grammar, used for different purposes. The same grammarian may study and publish on both. Prescriptive grammar is a set of rules that tell you how to speak; descriptive grammar is a set of rules that tell you how you already speak. It's like plan versus as-built blue prints. An engineer draws a plan blue print and gives it to a builder to tell him, for example, how long to make some beam. When the job is done, an engineer measures the beam that actually got built and makes an as-built blue print for the files to show that. There are a lot of good reasons for the two blue prints to differ.

Where prescriptive and descriptive grammar meet is where people use descriptive grammar to determine what the prescriptive grammar should be. The conflict is in that opinions vary on how much weight to give the descriptive grammar. In the blue print analogy, in designing a second building, one engineer might want to look at the as-built blue print for the first building and copy any mistakes so the buildings look the same; another engineer might want to use the same plan blue print for the second building so at least one of the buildings is right.

So in a discussions here about how we should write Wikipedia, we're talking strictly about prescriptive grammar. But we might incorporate descriptive grammar in our discussions.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine explanation. Thanks. TWCarlson (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

reprise comprise

The OED is indeed the queen of belles lettres of the English language, in Britain, U.S., internationally. And Wikipedia is ambitious to be international. Before computer subscription, I owned a two-volume edition with a magnifying glass. In my study of U.S. History, I could not understand much of American writing of the 1600s and 1700s without it, like the Mayflower Compact.

On the other hand, by the 1800s, Noah Webster had published his little volume of Americanisms. I note that while The New Yorker Magazine will defer to the British spelling of ‘Centre’ in the name of a British organization’s proper name, The London Economist does not reciprocate for an American ‘Center’, whether business or academic. Wikipedia might be more collegial.

The choice of the word ‘comprise’ for use in U.S. naval operations at sea is taken from the U.S. Navy source documents during WWII and now. Let the past be represented. In the modern day, at the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center for acquisitions, we have, “comprise” means to include or contain: “The whole comprises the parts.” ‘Comprise’ was used correctly in the Wikipedia article, Battle of Cherbourg, and in its reference to it in ‘destroyers’. An organization chart is ‘composed’ of elements, a military task force is ‘comprised’ of elements from their parent organizations.

Imagine a graduate course taught by a chemistry professor with an anthropologist, aeronautical engineer and Beowulf scholar. Such a course would have four PhDs, each from a school ‘composed’ of those from similar organizational disciplines. Lectures would be ‘comprised’ of the four professors. Navy and Marines call equipages ‘material’ after the British. Army and Air Force write “materiel’ after the French. Different situations, culture, usage.

Can you make an exception for the OED extinction of ‘comprise’, past and present? I only ask for its historical usage out of source documents, and the U.S. naval idiom. I am happy to defer to your preference on belles lettres. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the argument. I think you're saying "comprised of" was in the past more correct, and that in a special US Navy idiom, it is or was correct. But the rest of your comment doesn't back that up. The quoted Navy style manual says "comprised of" is incorrect. And while there are definitely US Navy documents that say "comprised of," I don't think it's any more or less common in US Navy documents than in documents in general, now or in the past.

I also see a proposition that the grammar is different when the parts of the whole are drawn from a particular larger whole. This is the first time I've ever heard that proposed, so I would need more evidence before I would want Wikipedia to use that grammar.

On the topic of idiom: I like to avoid it, in the interest of speaking a common language. Sometimes, the idiom carries such additional information that it makes sense to force the reader to learn the idiom, but in most cases, you can say the same thing in English that everyone knows and recognizes, and it makes more sense in an encyclopedia article to do that. Here's an example: American police departments frequently use the term "rate of speed" to mean "speed." I don't know why they do, but in ordinary English, that is gibberish. One could write a Wikipedia article about a police chase in that idiom, but it's better all around just to use the ordinary English "speed."

Bryan Henderson (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for switching my comprise to "consists". It is very strange, I think I very rarely use "comprise" anyway, and if you asked me any othe rday of the week I would have written "composed of" or "consists of". Possibly my brain was trying to add variety and reached into the bag and came up with "comprised" by mistake. I'm guessing that the meaning and spelling similarities between comprised-composed-consists must be close enough that they are stored in the same place. In any case, thanks for alerting me to this pitfall. Rschwieb (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I will try to answer more rigorously. The argument is that ‘comprised of’ is comparable to ‘declaration’. “Ordinary English” is served by using ‘composed of’ and ‘statement’ but they reflect different situations, cultures and usage in battle forces and legislatures, apart from the general population. Yet neither ‘comprised of’ nor ‘Declaration’ is impenetrable argot.

The Navy style manual cannot be construed to hold ’comprised of’ as “incorrect”. A lawyer is teaching young naval officers to write government contracts faced with adversarial lawyers for defense contractors. Engineers nearly always misuse ‘comprise’. Untrained 23-year olds should avoid ‘comprise’ and ‘compose’, substituting ‘consist’ in contract clauses. The Navy fights a ‘battle group comprised of’ disparate elements. Our young warriors want to use the fighting word, even when calling out engineering specifications. How ‘comprised’ can be used, the manual explains, is, “Comprise means to include or contain: The whole comprises the parts.” The word is not found “incorrect”.

The Oxford dictionaries says, 1 ‘Comprise’ primarily means ‘consist of’, as in ‘The country comprises twenty states.’ It can also mean ‘constitute or make up a whole’, in the passive. The “standard English” usage is, ‘The country is comprised of twenty states’. The construction “considered Incorrect” is, ‘The property comprises of bedroom, bathroom and kitchen.’ Elsewhere we can find ‘composed of’ and ‘included’ are broader, more inexact, including unspecified things, as in “The price includes a welcome pack.”

In the heat of the anti-war sixties, 53% of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel found this usage of ‘comprised of’ unacceptable. In 1996, only 35% objected. WP editors should avoid fifty-year old trends since reversed. Neither of the two U.S. Navy-related articles used the term in an improper fashion. There is no innovative proposal. Here we have ‘comprised of’ as standard English in both a Naval style manual and in the Oxford Dictionaries relating to “The whole is comprised of the (enumerated) parts”. Wikipedia can adopt its usage in Bombardment of Cherbourg and Destroyers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the context of the style manual you cited, but it's really hard to construe it as saying anything other than that "comprised of" is incorrect, since it says that verbatim, and also contrasts it with usage that is "correct" and calls it a "misuse" twice. But I never argue whether something is correct English; it's a waste of time. In Wikipedia articles, I look only for what is optimal.

I don't want to repeat my exhaustive argument for why "comprised of" is not the optimal word choice for Wikipedia in my essay that I presume you've read, but in brief: When one phrasing is accepted by some and despised by others and another phrasing is accepted by everybody, it's a no-brainer to me which phrasing to use in Wikipedia. When only one or two per cent of Wikipedia readers object to "comprised of," it might be time to consider preferring it in Wikipedia. But even then, it will have the logic and history argument against it.

And as I say there, dictionaries are right to say that people use "comprise" to mean "compose" and "constitute." They do. That doesn't mean they should. Dictionaries don't tell you what is the best word to use in any particular writing.

I'm not aware of any deprecation of the word "declaration," so that analogy doesn't help me.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Giraffedata Essay 'comprise'

In the name of collegiality, I would like to start all over. Let me try to restate back to you what I think I read in your essay. From the section "comprises" ... connotation is rather different from 'is composed of' or 'consists of.' "Comprises" means 'includes,' but usually means exhaustive inclusion -- there aren't any other parts. When A comprises 1, 2, and 3, ... the phrase emphasizes that A brings them together. 1, 2 and 3 should have some independent existence and not function merely as parts of this whole.

‘The diocese comprises Johnson and Davis Counties’ is good if there is no territory in the diocese other than Johnson and Davis Counties. The counties are much more than divisions of a diocese; the diocese merely gathers them together for church purposes. The most common things for which Giraffedata would use "comprises" are … consortia of businesses and such.

-- Which I take to mean task forces of squadrons and such. Ships and the squadrons they come from are more than parts of a Task Force. The Task Force merely gathers them together for combat purposes. Counties are more than divisions of a diocese, they are elements of a state or a nation. Ships are more than parts of a Task Force, they are elements of a squadron or a class.

If I understand the first part of your ‘comprises’ section, I do not follow the last element: In my initial readings, the predicate of ‘comprises’ cannot be an imprecise collective noun. Comprises means exhaustive inclusion -- there are no other parts.

• ‘The campus comprises acres.’ and ‘The division comprises destroyers.’ would thus be misuse,
• ‘The diocese comprised Johnson and Davis Counties.’ and ‘The task force once comprised the USS Laffey, Cory, Reuben James and Bainbridge.’ would be proper usage. Is that not correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly acceptable to say a task force comprises certain ships and squadrons. I've edited a lot of articles that say a military unit "is comprised of" smaller units and I think about half the time I change it to "comprises" and the other half I change it to "is composed of." I think it just depends upon my mood that day which nuance I decide to stress. So yes, I support "The task force once comprised the USS Laffey, Cory, Reuben James and Bainbridge."

"The campus comprises acres" is a very strange sentence, since "acres" is just a unit of measure. In my essay I do approve of the similar sentence, "the campus comprises 10 acres" (where "10 acres" is some particular set of land, and the campus contains no other land, and we're using the simple definition of "campus" where it's just land). "The division comprises destroyers" also works for me, as long as there is nothing in the division that isn't a destroyer.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Then, my having learned very much more about terminology, grammar and usage surrounding 'comprise' than I previously imagined to exist, allow me to thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In the enthusiasm of the converted, I'd like to suggest for those remaining miscreants, that project edit summaries point to the active voice and contain a link to the essay. The essay should explain proper usage in the 'comprise' section first, As you may have gathered, I found it persuasive at first reading. Then should follow treatment of 'compose', 'include', 'contain', 'embrace', 'constitute' et al as time, space and patience allow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I will put the link to the essay as the edit summary from now on. I've seen other editors do just that (link to my essay in their edit summary). It isn't practical to put anything more in the edit summary, since there are a variety of edits the essay covers. Many times "is comprised of" simply turns into "is." And while rewording to "A comprises B" is one way to improve "B is comprised of A," it really isn't the most basic because "comprise" is actually a relatively arcane word and the author who writes "B is comprised of A" probably isn't really thinking of inclusion at all, but composition. I.e. it isn't just about syntax.

One other thing: people often refer to "is comprised of" as a passive voice construction, but I don't think it is. One could parse the sentence that way, but I think "comprised" is actually an adjective here. It's the difference between "I replace my curtains when my house is painted" (passive voice verb: "is painted") and "My house is stained, not painted" (verb: "is"; predicate adjective: "painted").

Bryan Henderson (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I summarized our exchange on Talk:Bombardment of Cherbourg. Please let me know if it is fairly written. My take-away is that I would restrict 'comprise' to naval combat forces afloat. Otherwise, if I want variation from 'compose' there is 'include', 'contain', 'embrace', 'constitute'. Similarly, I only use 'materiel' for Army and Air Force equipages when discussing logistics, because in any other context it is a foreign word affectation, poor usage. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Too far?

This seems to take your program a bit too far as you changed a direct quotation. You were careful to put the new phrase outside the quotes, but I don't really see the point of edits like that. You should also note that standard paragraph breaks don't work in footnotes, hence the need to use <br> tags. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A better description would be I replaced part of a quotation with paraphrasing. Encyclopedias should generally paraphrase rather than excerpt, and that particular part of the quote does not seem to me to be worth quoting.

I didn't realize the paragraph break in footnotes issue. Thanks.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

SaPI

Hello Giraffedata. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit regarding 'comprised of' in the page SaPI as it was in a reference. I understand your reasons for marking it as incorrect yet this is the published title of the cited work. §everal⇒|Times 15:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do that by accident occasionally. Bryan Henderson (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Toby Mott

I am reverting your edit as you have altered a direct quote. Good luck with your project. Chaosandvoid (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a sic annotation to prevent the same mistake in the future. Bryan Henderson (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Executive Director Barnstar

Hello Bryan. I'm thrilled to award you with the Executive Director barnstar, which is an award I give out every now and then to honour and celebrate editors who are making a particularly significant, and perhaps under-recognized, contribution to the Wikimedia projects. You've been nominated for the ED Barnstar by Steven Walling, who described you to me as "the MOST AWESOME WikiGnome ever." You've been editing since 2004, and to date you've got more than 30,000 edits on seven projects, mainly the English Wikipedia. You're the author of the well-known essay "Comprised Of," and most of your edits (based on my reading of your contribs) are grammar-related. The vast majority of your edits are to articles, not talk space. I spend a lot of my time describing how Wikipedia works to people who don't know, and I often characterize the quintessential Wikipedian as pedantic and perfectionist. That's not a criticism. I was a journalist for almost twenty years, and in that time I worked with lots of fussy desk editors who cared deeply about language and wanted it used correctly. I admired them all, and I admire you. I thank you for your service to the Wikimedia movement! Please consider coming to a Bay Area meet-up sometime: they are lots of fun. In closing: if you, or anyone reading this, wants to nominate an editor for the ED Barnstar, please feel free to do it on my talk page. And thanks to Steven W., for making this nomination. Sue Gardner (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way Bryan it occurred to me that if you don't know this site already, you might enjoy it :-) http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/index.php Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

	The Home Is Where The Heart Is Award
	Hi Bryan, Thank you for fixing that typo. Best – DracoE 07:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Faleristics edit

Your edit was unnecessary and I have to wonder why you felt the need to do it. It smacks of edit warring and clearly you knew I'd revert it since it is grammatically correct given the sentence as a whole. Please stop this. Djathinkimacowboy 05:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not only not clear, but not true that I knew you'd revert it. I have made lots of edits like this and only very occasionally does one get reverted. And being unnecessary is not a legitimate reason for reverting. The edit summary points you to a mass of detail on why I felt the need to make the edit; if you still wonder, I doubt I can do any better. Bryan Henderson (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Picked an odd and inconvenient time to do it, didn't you? And for the record I think you really ought to move on, "comprised" and "comprised of" seem to me to be out of your league either way. Djathinkimacowboy 16:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by an odd and inconvenient time, and I'm starting to get the feeling that there's some coincidence here that makes you imagine an agenda behind this edit that simply isn't there. Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Religious habit edit

If this is any consolation, which I wish to offer to you in view of the above old post, I appreciate the work you're doing. I saw the edit and realised it wants edits like that. So I offer my apologies and extend a thank-you for doing this kind of editing work. It can draw fire and be thankless. I'm ashamed I added to your troubles in my earlier post. Djathinkimacowboy 17:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you involved in this?

Your name was added to Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Political Science:Political Violence and Insurgency/Articles - do you know why? Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you are a reviewer. I was just confused because of a massive odd change being made in Army of God (USA)) but I think I see what's happening. The addition of the banner there was however not a good idea, nor was editing without an edit summary by the two editors involved, plus of course the copyvio problems (see Talk:Army of God (USA). Communication (including edit summaries) and copyright issues need to be among the very first things taught to students. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what my name is doing in that list. It says I am a student who is a reviewer of an article that is involved in something called the United States Education Program, but I don't know (and was unable to find out) what that is and I am not a student. I did happen to edit the article in question, but only because I noticed it had some problematic phrasing and I fixed it. Bryan Henderson (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

st. david

St. David School (Richmond, California) an article that you have participated in editing has been nominated for deletion a second time, the first time in 2006 resulted in no consensus and, it can be reviewed here. The current discussion on the removal of the article is located here should you wish leave your comment.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)