Open main menu

Bulbapedia β

User talk:ShinyGiratina

Welcome to Bulbapedia, ShinyGiratina!
Bulbapedia bulb.png

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:

  • Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct.
  • Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around.
  • Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page.
  • Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style.
  • You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy.
  • Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.
  • If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite.
  • Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment.
  • For more handy links, see the welcome portal.
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  glikglak 22:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)  
 


Comprised

Might I ask what your beef with the word "comprised" is about? It means the same thing as composed. glikglak 22:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Composed of means "made up of" while comprises means "contains." So writing that something is "comprised of..." is basically writing "contains of..." So in proper grammar, one should never write "comprised of." I'm really sorry about all my editing of it, it's one of my OCD quirks (/my grammar teacher really drilled it into me things) that I have a lot of trouble ignoring. If I need to cool off about editing all of them, just let me know and I'd be happy to!--ShinyGiratina (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Your grammar teacher was perhaps sticking very strictly to a guide or something. In common usage, "comprised of" does not literally (or "basically") mean "contains of". There are some (perhaps many) times where you cannot ignore the evolution of language, and I would suggest that "comprise" is one such. (See also "comprise" on Wiktionary or on Webster's. They do not limit the definition to "contains".)
At any rate, comprised vs composed is a very small difference (if any). So yes, it would not be advisable to try to change it everywhere. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Just because some dictionaries contain "comprised of" it doesn't then make it appropriate because the purpose of a dictionary is to tell you what people mean when they say something and not what is acceptable/correct and the two ones you gave have usage notes advising against using "comprised of". The problem ShinyGiratina raised should be used as a basis to not use "comprised of" as at least if an alternative is used like "composed of" or "comprising" it would avoid this issue. The user ForceFire however thinks that "comprised of" is better because it "flows" the best, this is not a reason to use this as "could of" flows better (in my opinion) than "could have" and many people probably use the former, but this would get dismissed as "incorrect" English. If "could of" is not acceptable then why is "comprised of"? If dictionaries have usage notes that tell you to avoid using "comprised of" then is it used on this wiki?Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"Could of" is not the same. "Could of"/"Could've" is basically a homophone like write/right, too/to/two, and their/there/they're. I.e., when spoken, it doesn't matter which you think you're saying ("could of" or "could've"), but if you write it, there is absolutely a right and wrong form. No amount of "opinion" can change that, unlike comprised/composed. (Particularly, "could have [verb]" is a very specific form, and there is simply no way to substitute a preposition like "of" into the middle of that; by contrast, "composed" and "comprised" are both just verbs, and so all you can do is quibble about the exact meaning of each (or maybe some other characteristic I don't know how to name).) Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You dismissed "could of" as being incorrect due to "rules" but is this not similar to "comprised of". After doing a search for "could of" after the sites that tell you not to use it other sites are in the results that use "could of", this could be because of the confusion with "could've" still many people use it in writing and it is still getting dismissed as incorrect English. This is similar with "comprised of" because it basically means "contained of" but because some people use it, it is seen by some people as correct English but "could of" isn't. ShinyGiratina and I have given reasons for why "comprised of" is incorrect you haven't actually provided anything to say it is correct, yes you provided links to dictionaries that have a quote featuring it but they have a note advising you not to use it which suggests that it is unsuitable.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
"is this not similar to 'comprised of'?" No.
I explained it above, but to repeat... Your argument(s) come down to, "I'm sure 'comprised' and 'composed' mean these things..." There's fair amounts of opinion in that. "Could of" is plain and simple badly written English, in the same way that "I to agree" or "I see to cats and three dogs" are badly written English. PERIOD. These things are not the same, and not even "similar" in any worthwhile way. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You haven't given any reason to suggest that "comprised of" is actually correct and you didn't argue against my point that the usage notes on the two dictionaries suggest that it isn't widely accepted and is therefore inappropriate on an encyclopaedia. "On what did you stand?" is better written English than "What did you stand on?" as it doesn't end with a preposition yet many people would use the latter as opposed to the former it doesn't then mean that we should then use the latter it's the same with "comprised of" just because some people use it, it doesn't make it appropriate for an encyclopaedia.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The "rule" of not ending with a preposition is utter [self-censored], as far as I'm concerned. The "right" way almost always sounds terrible.
A "proscription" does not mean a thing is wrong, only that self-important people think it is. (Yes, labeling them self-important is perhaps a little unfair. What I mean is, no one actually has any sort of "authority" over a language.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "ShinyGiratina".