Talk:Comprised of

Error

< The Oxford English Dictionary regards the construction "comprised of" as incorrect,[2] >

No, it doesn't. Read what [2] says more carefully.

86.130.154.59 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, good catch. It needs redoing or omitting, which I will if you or no-one else gets round to it first (hint hint) and it also needs the cite and the text revising as the cite is not the OED itself and we don't do any favours to anyone by misattributing it. Weirdly at that free link they do not even tell you how to cite it but at the subscriber version they just say cite it as Oxford Dictionaries so that is what I guess we should go for. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done, sort of. I fixed the cite and had a go at the text but it's a right old can of worms ... it really ***** the ***** that the Oxford site (and G*d knows how many others. I have not checked) differentiates between The ensemble comprises of a drunk trumpet player and three bassoonists, which it thinks is wrong, and The ensemble is comprised of a drunk trumpet player and three bassoonists, which it thinks is standard English usage and signally fails to condemn. So it was fiddly just trying to get that right and it does make me perhaps wonder about the sustainability of this article in the long term, but hey. Best to all DBaK (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Thanks for catching my shouting, for which I apologise

2. The info from Oxford is available in print in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, page 295 in the 12th edition, ISBN 978-0-19-960108-0 'This usage is part of standard English'.

3. Far be it from me &c., but the 'Oxford' input suggests that in British English at least, the whole 'comprised of' topic is completely nullified.

86.130.154.59 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks 86.130.154.59 for that.

1. No worries! Thank you.

2. Yup. The COD page you quote seems to be the exact same material as we have currently cited to Oxford Dictionaries. Would it be preferable to cite it to your paper copy? Perhaps because the COD is a more recognizable and, er, solid thing than the slightly wibblywobbly onliney thing that is not-the-OED? I'm happy to leave it as it is or to edit it to the paper book or to see others do so while I make tea. Or not. Or something.

3. Yes, yup, ja, oui and si. Holey moley moo ma you bet. The more I look at it the more it looks like we're trying to nail down blancmange. Indeed quite large tracts of this talk page are about that same existential angst type thingy. What are we writing about, how is it defined, do those parameters work, are we describing a fact or a series of views, and why does the bl**dy perspective keep shifting? Even its original creator, bless 'im, says he nearly zapped it fresh from the typewriter ribbon but didn't quite do so. I'm not going to AfD it myself but I do have moments of wondering about its appropriateness when it seems to be comprised of so many different and sometimes argumentative elements. It reminds me of another old favourite article of mine, which I am most certainly not naming here, which is another "Awful People Do This Bad Thing And They Should Not" slightly indignant one, which I love too, and which has somehow survived down the years despite its slightly meh quality when compared with articles on slightly more tangible things such as Trumpet, Cobalt or Azalea. So, I think I am probably mostly done here for a bit, having tried to help, and will see what develops. I could ban myself from here for 6 months and see what is still standing in August! Best to all, DBaK (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

PS See what I did there? :) DBaK (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hitchens quote

I attempted to sort out a mess around the Hitchens quote (no. 18 as I write) that had got messed up in a good-faith edit in 2015. It now works, but I am d*mned if I can see what it is supporting and how. I thought the Google link would take me to a usage example, but it appears not to. Fixable, or can we just delete it? Thanks DBaK (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The parts are comprised IN the whole

Is the example given by Garner a true passive ?

The whole comprises the parts, the parts are comprised in the whole.

Secondly, isn't the following a legitimate passive? Brass that is composed of copper and zinc by the town smith every morning --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Inscrutable assertion in lead paragraph

It says "'comprise' means 'that which encompasses the whole'". First, a verb does not mean a noun phrase. But I can't figure out what this is even trying to say. Atario (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Godzilla truly had a stroke that day. Should be corrected now.

Darkmagine (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Context

Could we say, for example, the solution comprises of several security products. The solution is composed of security product1, security product2 and security product3. Would that make sense? 216.213.134.10 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)