Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 735 posts

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#261

Post by devnullbrain »

denton-scratch wrote: post #214

"Comprises" means "consists of". So "comprised of" means "consists of of". It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" (with the edit comment "Don't utilize utilize"). Nobody's ever reverted me for that. I think there is a proper use for the verb "utilize": it means "to render useful". But usually, it's just a substitute for "use"…

I feel the same way about s/use/utilize. It's like Joey on Friends using a thesaurus.

See also 'Due to the fact' -> 'because'

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#262

Post by kitallis »

denton-scratch wrote: post #214

"Comprises" means "consists of". So "comprised of" means "consists of of". It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" (with the edit comment "Don't utilize utilize"). Nobody's ever reverted me for that. I think there is a proper use for the verb "utilize": it means "to render useful". But usually, it's just a substitute for "use"…

This reminds me of the David Foster Wallace video on "puff words" or genteelisms - https://youtu.be/52kiS1oV2k0

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#263

Post by bombcar »

crote wrote: post #87
DangitBobby wrote: post #25

Is there a way to prevent people from doing petty and unnecessary vandalism to articles you've authored or are you pretty much at their mercy?

You can't, Wikipedia is pretty much entirely pedantry at this point. To give an example: a while back a semi-notable object in my local area burned down. It has a short Wikipedia page of a few hundred words, but it is not something anyone would actually care about. At 02:00AM (in the middle of the night) I added this to its Wikipedia page, citing a Tweet from the official fire department. Five minutes later the entir…

It is absolutely pointless to bother contributing to Wikipedia. Either it’s so notable someone else will do it, or you’ll get steamrolled by some out of control editor.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#264

Post by adjav »

lIl-IIIl wrote: post #166
p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

"I go house" is not standard English. When they said 'There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of"' it is implied that those other ways are standard English. >The author could have just written "I don't like 'comprised of', and I'm going to impose my preference on everyone else, even though the term has been part of standard contemporary English for a long time." But they are not imposing…

There is no "standard English." There sure as hell isn't a consensus that "comprised of" is incorrect, or it wouldn't have been used over 90k times.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#265

Post by charles_f »

ludston wrote: post #215

I enjoy collecting little things like this to annoy the grammar gatekeepers. Why say "regardless" when "irregardless" means the same thing but also annoys prescriptivists? "Ironical" instead of "ironic" and "less" instead of "fewer". Now that I know, "comprised of" fits in this category, it's definitely going to be a part of the everyday lexicon.

You are pure entropy!

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#266

Post by denton-scratch »

morsch wrote: post #38
p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

Articles obviously add information: is it a specific, known house you are going to ( I'm going to the house ) or a non-specific/not previously referred to ( I'm going to a house )? When it's your own house you're going to, you could argue the definite article wouldn't add anything, and the phrasal verb to go home drops it (ie. I'm going home ), though adding an article is possible and changes the meaning ( I'm going…

> is it a specific, known house you are going to

"I'm going house" contains less meaning than "I'm going to [a] house". Without the preposition, it could mean "I'm leaving [a] house" ("I'm going from house").

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#267

Post by coding123 »

p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

No one is going to fight this person trying to erase a word though.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#268

Post by captainmuon »

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer the use "is comprised of" over "comprises". For the supposedly correct version, you can almost always say it differently:

E.g. simply: A proton contains three quarks. But if you want to use passive voice, there is no good other option. A proton is made of three quarks? Sounds too colloquial. ...is put together from...? No. I think "A proton is comprised of three quarks" is the cleanest way of saying what I want to say.

And yes, this was an actual example from my work and I discussed it through because I feel strongly about it :-)

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#269

Post by dheera »

denton-scratch wrote: post #214

"Comprises" means "consists of". So "comprised of" means "consists of of". It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" (with the edit comment "Don't utilize utilize"). Nobody's ever reverted me for that. I think there is a proper use for the verb "utilize": it means "to render useful". But usually, it's just a substitute for "use"…

I think people mean to say "composed of" but then they change it to "comprised" because it sounds more high-class and elite.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#270

Post by devnullbrain »

p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

>Note that "The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionaries regard the form comprised of as standard English usage."

I've never found this a convincing argument. Think of when you use a dictionary: it's because you want to understand a word that you don't understand in its context. If it didn't include all uses, the dictionary wouldn't help you. A dictionary a tool to help consume language.

If you want help to produce language, you refer to a style guide. The barrier for acceptability is much higher there.

Post reply on HN