This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
As I began to say in the edit summary, I know there's a class of editor who has very strong opinions on the prescriptive uses of of both "comprise" and "compose", but the problem is that they do not match common descriptive uses in modern English (nor accepted dictionary uses) and, worse yet, opinions are all over the place with regard to which is the direct object and which the indirect with regard to each, effectively meaning you can almost never use one or another of these (highly useful) terms in editing without a person from one camp or the other jumping upon it and trying to assert their own narrow view of the terms upon everyone. I know its a small point, but I'm tired of edging around this issues. I don't care if we use comprised or composed, but as a style matter (which typically goes to the earliest significant editor on a page), I'm afraid I'm going to insist on one or the other as "had" is just not as semantically distinct and thus less encyclopedic. Snowtalk04:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
