User talk:Giraffedata/comprised of

Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)

Concerning Special:Diff/1301990598/1302206208 - please bear with me as I am no expert. But, I am the guilty party who added the comprise. I carefully read the first part of the essay. It says:

"The whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole."

In this case the sentence basically reads "the whole [facility] comprises the parts [a bridge, etc]". It seems in-sync with the mnemonic. I'm not dead set on comprised, consisting sounds OK. -- GreenC 05:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"the facility comprises a bridge, etc." would be fine. That is an undisputed use of the word "comprise". But "is comprised of" is quite different grammatically from "comprises". It reverses the agent and object. By analogy, "Johnny kicks the ball" is not basically the same as "Johnny is kicked of the ball." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

OK. How about "facility comprised of a" could be "facility comprising a". -- GreenC 15:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

meaning of comprised of

Dear Giraffedata,

Comprised of means "includes but may not be limited to," whereas "composed of" means "includes only the following and nothing else." Using "composed of" or "consists of" in the wrong context (in a patent, for example) can really get you into trouble. It limits your rights to the parts identified, instead of creating a right that includes but isn't limited to specific parts.

Your correction of my use of "comprised of " does make sense, however, because it referenced 2 census tracts that are the only census tracts composing the area.

Very truly yours, Antonio Alonzo Aesklepion (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen anyone else say that "comprised of" is not exhaustive inclusion. Every dictionary and usage guide I've seen says it simply means (if anything) "composed of" or (with "is") "consists of". And the thousands of instances I've seen in Wikipedia appear from context to be used that way. Comprises, on the other hand, does differ from "is composed of" in that comprises need not be exhaustive. (However, even "comprises" usually implies exhaustive inclusion, with "includes" or "contains" being preferable when there may be more components than those listed. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

you do come across it in patent law, and then you notice how it is used properly and with nuance. https://gemini.google.com/share/d200dcdd2e1b Aesklepion (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Using readout from Gemini, an AI, is perhaps not the best example... – The Grid (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm that the content in the link I shared is correct, having studied patent law. Sources are cited in the so-called "AI readout" if you wish to learn about the topic. Aesklepion (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Here it is from my textbook:

https://image2url.com/images/1762704955717-dd524331-742b-4151-a8b6-92038d977832.jpg

https://image2url.com/images/1762705002521-f5a1c7a3-ec3b-4c4c-b641-eb7e63960653.jpg Aesklepion (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that the textbook does not mention the phrase "comprised of". The author probably believes, like so many other learned people, that the phrase is nonsense. Gemini seems to have taken the statement in the textbook that "comprises" is inexhaustive inclusion and merged it with information from elsewhere that people commonly use "is comprised of" to mean "comprises". But it seems to have missed that people even more commonly use "is comprised of" to mean "consists of". The textbook, as well as the Gemini synthesis, says that "consists of" contrasts with "comprises" in being exhaustive.

Probably the most important conclusion to draw from this, though, is that everyone seems to agree that "comprised of" does not have a unique meaning, even in patent law, so we're free to resolve the dispute over its usage by just not using it at all. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this thorough reflection. "Comprised of" is bad writing, and shouldn't be used in place of comprises or comprising. Maybe another conclusion is in the case of descriptions of inventions on Wikipedia, replacing the word comprises or comprising, even if it seems to be used in a clumsy way, should be avoided. Not sure if you've ever done that. Thanks for you insight into this matter, and your patience with me! Aesklepion (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Loved the essay, one small suggestion

Just wanted to say thank you for doing this - really interesting research and subject - I'm amazed by how emotive such a small edit like this can be for people.

I have one suggestion for your essay, specifically the music situation. In a specialist article, say on counterpoint analysis of a Bach Fugue, one can easily be mentally fatigued by having to decipher between composed and comprised, so I can understand how editors might "reach" for their "comprised of". Whilst I like your examples, I think its often better to avoid "composed" at all costs in such music articles. You could consider including a more specific example such as "The texture consists of two invertible lines above a cantus firmus." or "The exposition comprises subject, answer, countersubject, and codetta.", which avoid "composed" altogether.

Just a thought...

Thanks :) Marvingauld (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and the suggestion.

You have a point about fatigue in deciding which "compose" it is when you're reading about music. I've tried to address that with the following under arguments in favor of comprise:

But there are probably some arcane contexts where it would take some mental energy to determine whether "composed of" refers to writing music or some other kind of composition, and "comprised of" would have an edge there in making the text easier to read. Not as much of an edge as "consists of" or "comprises", though. See Alternative phrasing.

And under Alternative phrasing/composed of,

In a musical context, there can be a conflict between the common use of "compose" to refer specifically to creating music ("She composed the song on a ukulele") and other forms of composition, so that it requires some mental energy for a reader to distinguish the two. In those cases, "composed of" is probably not the best alternative. "The texture is composed of two invertible lines above a cantus firmus" is probably easier to read as, "The texture consists of ...".

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)