Talk:Here

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Here


Wow... I typed in my hometown name (Palenville) without the state name, and it redirected here. Wikipedia is tracking me. Freaking weird. 66.109.47.183 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Where are we?"

"Here. You are standing in here. Everything happening here, is happening here."

"What happened to there?"

"We passed it."

"Where?"

"Over there."

"You are here."

Image[edit]

There is no point in having an image of the Andromeda Galaxy is this article. Even if our galaxy does look a bit like the Andromeda Galaxy, that doesn't mean that we should use a picture of it as a substitute. All if does is add confusion, and in any case, the article is not supposed to be about galaxies anyway. A description of our position in the Milky Way would be nice in the Milky Way article, and an accompanying diagram would be nice in that article, too. Not one of the Andromeda Galaxy, though... -- Oliver P. 01:08, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you believe so, replace it with an illustration of the position of the solar system in our local galaxy which meets the level of accuracy you desire. Until then, the article has an approximation which correctly conveys the general appearance of our galaxy and the general location of our solar system within it. Removing the image and caption removed useful information about our location. Would an image of M61 or M83 be sufficiently accurate for you? JamesDay 17:57, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What wikipedia users are "probably here" in the Andromeda Galaxy. I am in the Milky Way Galaxy. Am I missing something? As far as I know there are no known photographs of the Milky Way Galaxy taken from outside of said galaxy. Does anyone have any further information on this? Isaac Crumm 08:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, people ... did you check out the image actually in use (as of today, 19 April 2006)? It is not an astrophotograph of anything; it is an artist's rendering of the Milky Way with a supposed barred spiral. Rpresser 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Caption suggestion: "If you think, you are here. If not, you are there." Althepal 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Amused[edit]

I love the fact that this article doesn't just assume you are human. Somewhere an Alpha Centaurite who is planning the invasion of Earth is reading this article and now believes we suspect something. Well we do, malevolent intelligences.....we do. Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spacetime and ...[edit]

Yes, most likely. Do we really know? Here is Now - in spacetime and that is quantum physics. I agree the quantum physics sentence does need to be tied in better. So tie it, don't just wipe it. -Vsmith 23:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where are you now? Here is intimately tied to now, in everyday parlance as well as in the relativistic concept of spacetime. Yes, it is more in tune with relativity than with quantum concepts. But the two are merging, are they not? -Vsmith 01:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where was I yesterday? Here. Where are you now? Not in my here. It's not a linked concept; it only happens that one could be in a particular here in the now. Though it may be a common co-incidence, there is a reason that one refers to the here and now to specify both the place here and the time now. Anyone could have been or will be in the place I now call here regardless of time. Just because any I is always at his here in a particular now, does not mean that "here is ones spatial and temporal location". Here is just the spatial location; it can be used to refer to any time at all, not just the now. Here is a reference to a place, that is a location in space, not time. - Centrx 19:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nope! Here is where I am now. My here of yesterday was a completely different place (about 60 miles NW of my present here) and it is now there not here. Here moves with you in time and is totally linked to now. Saying here and now is redundant. Not just a common coincidence at all, here is always co-incident with now. On a detailed scale no one can be in the same place, here, as I am, unless they are inside of my head. If I move they can sit it this chair, but it will be there for me then. We seem to be thinking on quite different levels, "here is ones spatial and temporal location". -Vsmith 23:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Someone else can be referring to their here and yet be referring to where you were yesterday. So, a person 60 m NW of you could call and say to you "You were here yesterday" and the subject of their statement is not the present. A more apt example would be this: I can point to a location on a map and say "I was here yesterday" and not be referring at all to my present location. Furthermore, if I were to say "I was here" when pointing to the map, the "temporal location" would not be included at all in the statement. I could have been at the location yesterday or a year ago, but that information is not included in here. Here and now is not redundant; it is quite easy to refer to the location here but at some other time. There is no temporal information in the word here. - Centrx 21:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"You were here yesterday", and that yesterday is temporal, I was there yesterday - It isn't here for me now. A map is a representation of an area as it was then - when the map was made. Saying I was here while pointing at a map location is bad language use - should be I was there. I am well aware of the perhaps sloppy use of language by most of us (including myself). Here does mean now and here moves with us; we each have our personal here - kinda lika a shadow. -Vsmith 18:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just because you can pair here with a "temporal location" does not mean that the temporal location is in the meaning of the word. Any "temporal location" can be paired with the word, nay, in order for a information about a "temporal location" to be conveyed, a separate timely word must be paired with it. Here has no temporal meaning in itself, only a spatial one. Just look up the word, your exegesis of it is at odds with the accepted literary and common definition: here can be the place where the person speaking places himself, as on a map. One can tell a story about the past or an entirely fictional story and correctly use the word here. One can indeed correctly say "I was here yesterday", as they can be referring to the very location in which they are now, but talking about the yesterday, which is to say that the now is not any subject of the statement, it is only incidental to it. - Centrx 18:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also note that it is redundant to have another sentence that states "spatial and temporal location", for that meaning is contained in the word "place" (or, for temporal, not, if my argument be true). - Centrx 18:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment[edit]

What purpose does it serve? Is it helpful at all? Is here encyclopedic? Somehow it survived two VfD's, which makes you wonder about the VfD process. So, I don't see the point in concerning oneself with what it's packed up with. VeryVerily 00:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And just why are you embarrassed? If you don't like it then simply ignore it :-) It is a bit whimsical and fun, that is sufficient purpose for me. If it provokes deeper thought - then it is helpful. Surviving two VfDs says it may be worthwhile. Do we have to be stuffy and encyclopaedic a la 1911. All you need to do is click unwatch. -Vsmith 03:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a comedy club. Whimsicalness and fun is great - in the right context. I am less impressed by the survival through two VfDs than you seem to be. And I don't think 1911 was so stuff. VeryVerily 11:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article survived VfD because of the whimsy of its prose. If that whimsy is not retained in changes, those changes ought to be reverted. Turning it into a bland statement of facts is not appropriate. - Centrx 20:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bland is in the eye of the beholder. Consider the omnipresence paragraph and the Hindu writer note. Not much whimsy there. -Vsmith 01:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the whimsyness is a bit uncalled for. "Just plain here"? "You are here - probably"? Why can't this just be made less amusing and more serious? The facts stated are, however, nice and informative and should stay. Even the stuff about where "here" is for humans.Hardwick 09:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In fact one of the reasons the 1911 is considered so good — in my areas of interest (classical history, Italy) it really is excellent — is that the individual authors' personalities were allowed to shine thru: a close reading of some of the articles shows rather controversial opinions and bits of humor; it's not stuffy at all. One of Wikipedia's flaws is that, perforce, because we're so highly collaborative, our articles are overly flat and earnest; we take ourselves a bit too seriously. It's nice to see that here, we have a little pocket of whimsy left. We should protect it by not going overboard. — Bill 12:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article is no embarrassment; it conveys information while being fun to read. Would that many other articles in Wikipedia did the same. I think I'll nominate this "embarrassment" for a Featured Article. --StanZegel 15:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please note that it is quite reasonable for an item to convey information and be amusing, yet not be appropriate for an encyclopedia, or not be appropriate in a certain section of that encyclopedia. - Centrx 05:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are here, bipedal watersack[edit]

First of all, I don't think this article is embarrassing at all, and "here" is without doubt a concept deserving an encyclopedia article.

That said, it's not exactly the perfect article, either.

  1. Do we have a policy about not addressing the reader? We should have. It is one thing to say "here is the place you are now", because this is a valid use — you can hardly express this any other way ("here is the place one is now" sounds not just stuffy, but plain wrong). However, asides like "but, that, for you, is probably there" and "it means that wherever you are, God is here" (which, incidentally, should be "there") are going too far. It's one thing to not sound like the 1911 Britannica, it's another to sound like Barney the Dinosaur.
  2. Jocular things like "Now and then, in quantum physics, some places are neither here nor there; strictly speaking, they are neither now nor then, either" are just intellectual masturbation for the author(s). Sorry to put it so graphically, but really, you're forgetting your duty is to inform the reader, not to have a good chuckle with the ones already in the know. What places? Is taking apart an idiom like "now and then" informative? Strictly speaking as opposed to what loose speech? Do we even care? What does "here" actually have to do with quantum physics? I'll never find out just from reading this article.
  3. The whole "If you're human, you are probably here" part is right on the edge. Some of it should be kept, because specifying "here" in a broad sense for a significant part of our reader base is important :-) but it, too, needs a rewrite to sound less whimsical. In particular, the whole pseudo-scientific phrasing gag gets tired real soon. "[...] suspended above it by a human construction or natural entity or phenomenon", come on. Yeah, and maybe there are supernatural phenomena too, that allow me to levitate, though of course most people believe this not to be the case... And in the other direction, why stop at the Virgo Supercluster, anyway? Shouldn't we mention the universe as well?

I'm mentioning all this up front because I expect to put in more edits, some of these might be considered "controversial" by the fun-lovers, and I can't squeeze this all in an edit summary.

Entertaining the readers is alright, but we first and foremost have the duty to inform them. If you can be funny while being informative, great. If you can't, you should probably let being informative take priority. JRM 14:17, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Right, I've butchered improved the article. In the process, it occurred to me that many things are better said at location, especially the science bits — absolute versus relative reference frames, the discontinuity of position in quantum mechanics, even observers. So I've mostly weeded this from the article, rather than expanding on it, which would not be meaningful. Mentioning coordinate systems is relevant, but only just. The sections now look a bit skimpy, but I'm not sure they can be expanded a lot without going off on tangents (there might be more to say on the philosophy front, however). "Here" may be a neat concept, but it's just not that relevant to things in and of itself. JRM 16:31, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

If you didn't find the article embarssing at all then, pray tell, why did you gut it. Keep going the way you are and there will be nothing left, but some dry boring factoids. Is that your perception of what an encyclopedia article is s'posed to be? No whimsey, no humor, nothing to puzzle the mind and trigger thinking. Just the dull dry facts, ma'am. When you are finished - we will come back and fix it so go ahead and butcher. :-) Vsmith 17:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead. Make my day. :-)
The last time I looked, whimsy and humor were not required parts of an encyclopedia article. They weren't forbidden, but they weren't top priority either. Relevant facts and clear writing were. If you can put in things that are relevant, clear and just happen to be humorous, by all means, put them in. Exploding whale, anyone?
I won't "keep going the way I am". I'm done. Everything that needed to be removed or reworded as far as I'm concerned has been removed or reworded.
Now for some opinions, to puzzle the mind and trigger thinking. What are you thinking of, exactly? A witty novel? A Scientific American column? I'm not claiming to be the world's greatest writer by any stretch, but some of this just had to go. Do you really think talking about quantum mechanics in cryptic ways is good for "puzzling the mind"? It comes dangerously close to being synonymous with "confusing" and "undecipherable" instead. An article is not some postmodernist poem, obscuring matters for the reader to "come and find out". An encyclopedia is a secondary source. A reference work. "Triggering thinking" is not a goal, not even "educating" in the general sense. Ideally, your thinking is already triggered, or you wouldn't be coming to an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia that tries to be "thought-provoking" in and of itself comes dangerously close to being original research.
I'm not saying this article is finished. By all means, we can fill gaps and tie things together to make it look less like a trivia list. Maybe the prose can be made more lively here and there. But not so lively that it doesn't resemble any other article on Wikipedia. Even the most whimsical topics I've seen here are treated seriously enough. Aside from exploding whale, there's death erection, cartoon physics, and turtles all the way down, to just take a random selection from Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Extreme ironing even includes the whimsical but brilliant phrase "EI supposedly combines the excitement of an extreme sport with the satisfaction of freshly ironed clothes". Splendid! I haven't seen anything resembling this in here, though.
Putting in "humorous", "puzzling" things for the sake of "triggering" thinking without having the factual content to back it up is just discourteous to readers whose minds are perfectly in order, and who expect an encyclopedia to weed out the personal opinions and give them "the dull dry facts". Having those is still a lot better than having someone's idea of what "thought-triggering" prose is.
Damn, this is a long rant. :-) Time to get something positive in. How about this: you go and edit all you like, and I will do likewise. I promise I won't simply revert without taking it to the talk page first, but I am going to "gut" your edits if I think they're not up to par — sorry. Be as whimsical as you like; if your whimsy pushes you beyond factual accuracy, I'll try to push you back. And if you think I'm not being funny enough, you are of course free to "correct" me as well. :-) JRM 19:02, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Well, someone's heavy eraser has turned what had been an informative, thought-provoking, yet whimsical, article into a a great big Y-A-W-N.--StanZegel 02:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again[edit]

Vsmith, I see you've boldly reinserted some material. Let's discuss.

  • For each, physically there is most likely only one here while there are an infinity of theres.

Most likely? Either it's so or it isn't. Are there competing theories, or something? And I assume "for each" means "for everyone" or "for each subject"? Suggest rewording, for example:

For every thinking subject, there is only one physical here while there are an infinity of theres.
  • Here and now may be all there is, depending on your level of awareness or consciousness.

Yeah, or maybe it's more. What doesn't depend on your "level of awareness or consciousness". And what is "all there is"? Reality? The universe? What are you trying to convey here? Something metaphysical?

  • If we were to travel back to the future, where would we find ourselves on arrival? Here moves.

Back to the Future, I love that movie. Doesn't change the fact that most of our readers will be firmly in the present, and don't come from the future, so there's nothing to travel "back" to. That time travel would change our "here" is trivial! If I walk ("space travel") from A to B, I've moved "here". I don't need time travel for that. Of course "here" moves with us, by definition. Are you getting at something deeper, here? JRM 18:34, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

OK. I've done a bit more - just rewording and suffling a bit.
First: Yes, most likely, we don't really know do we? Think parallel universes at this junction :-) - And, leave a bit of vagueness to spark thought perhaps. Either it's so or it isn't. - no that implies certainty, and we really aren't. Yes, I know that you disagree with anything that might provoke thinking and deeper digging. I don't - it is an important part of real learning (as opposed to fact cramming).
Yes, I know that you disagree with anything that might provoke thinking and deeper digging. If we're going to continue on this level, we'll never get anywhere. Perhaps apologies from my side are in order for some of the more harsher things I said above; I'm sorry if anything implied personal dislike of you, or contempt of your writing in general. It was not meant that way. I have no doubt that we're both acting in good faith and convinced that what we're doing is best for the encyclopedia; we just feel differently about what that is. I have no axe to grind with you, and I'm not some emotionless drone bent on excising everything of interest from the article. Education is precious to me, and Wikipedia is one of my most valuable resources. That doesn't mean we can't disagree productively on what this article should and shouldn't contain.
Parallel universes — my point was to avoid weasel terms like "most likely". If we don't really know, we must say why not. If you are a reader ignorant of parallel universes, is the phrase "most likely" the most likely to make you find out about them? :-) "Provoking thought", sure, but if you're not going to offer people a chance to find out more, what's the point? There's also the point of checking your facts. Vagueness implies that you are discharging responsibility of factual accuracy to the reader. That's alright in a school lecture, but not in an encyclopedia. I would go so far as to word it like this (but read the longer text below, too): anything in an encyclopedic article should be verifiable by a reader with a minimal amount of effort. Anathema to education? So much the worse for education. (I know this is a charged statement. Wait for the longer text. :-) JRM 09:14, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
Second: Here and now may be all there is, depending on your level of awareness or consciousness. OK, I've shifted this to philosophy or more properly psychology. Think of an infant - what is an infant's perception of reality? Also consider the level of non-human subjects - where are they. And, yes, I think they can be addressed by the article - even if they cannot read :-).
You see what I'm getting at? You're explaining to me now what we should be explaining to the reader. You can't say on one level "shhh, I'm trying to educate people" and on another level say "OK, here's what I was getting at, for those of you still too dim to grasp it". I'm not opposed to your goals, I just didn't agree with your methods. I don't think less than the "dull, dry facts" is in order, I think more is needed. More explicit things, to be precise. If you leave it all hush-hush, the article eventually becomes indistinguishable from original research, which is a no-no. The readers must be able to convince themselves, from the article alone, that the author isn't trying to expound a pet theory, but accurately reflecting significant beliefs held by others, or supplying things following from those beliefs. JRM 09:14, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
Third: Added a bit on the time travel part. Maybe more science fiction than science, but the former often anticipates the latter. Here does keep on moving and what happens during time travel, if your time machine doesn't keep track, you end up within a star - not trivial - or out in the middle of empty space - not trivial either. Yes, that is mainly there for the fun part, but again maybe it will spark an imagination ... is all that deeper? I see education at two basic levels. First: The traditional cram lots of facts in the head - then regurgitate on an exam. Second: Get some basic facts in the head, add some puzzling facts that don't seem to fit, shake gently and new insight or new questions might result. Where does a non-traditional encyclopedia fit in this? Vsmith 02:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to mentioning time travel because it's (still?) fictional (we have a perfectly good article on it, for one — it's a notable topic). I now see what you mean: you were talking about the fact that any method of time travel that only takes time into account would be hazardous to one's health. :-) My physical position doesn't change, but because my temporal position does, "here" is not what I might expect it to be. It would be a fatal dose of analogy to call the summit of Mount Everest at 3 AM "here", then using my time machine to travel 12 hours into the future and assuming I'll end up at the summit at 3 PM... On the contrary, I'll find myself on the other side of the world, and probably quite a long way from the ground, too.
All the things you're getting at were lost on me, despite the fact that I'm familiar with all of these topics — parallel universes, consciousness, time travel, quantum mechanics... What does that mean? That I'm stupid, or not interested in learning? I would disagree :-) I would instead politely offer the explanation that the author is having the wrong image of his readers: they expect the readers to be clairvoyant, getting what the author is hinting at, and willing to plow through exhaustive articles like quantum mechanics in search of something that might just be relevant to the topic at hand. But I'm offering the suggestion that many readers are like me: they don't want to second-guess their encyclopedia ("What could be meant here? Do I need to know about this for a complete picture? Am I missing important things? Can I rely on this information?"), they want it to be straight about the facts.
Wikipedia is "non-traditional" by necessity first, and by choice only second. Its medium (wiki) doesn't match any traditional encyclopedia, so some things are different: Wiki is not paper. But Wikipedia is not a classroom either: you're not addressing students who can ask their teacher if they don't understand something, or want to know more about a subject. We've had good articles grow out of classnotes, especially in the philosophy section, but none of these articles stayed in the form of classnotes. They couldn't. An article cannot be someone's private attempt at educating — not even the attempt of a group of collaborating people.
Think of it another way. Imagine this article is read by a card-carrying philosopher. He won't need any explanation on what consciousness has to do with here, and perhaps he can even contribute more. But suppose the philosopher doesn't know anything but the most general things about time travel or quantum mechanics — not impossible — and would like to be pointed to sources with more information — information that will is relevant to "here" mind you! What are we telling him? "Go read time travel in its entirety, then you might understand what I meant with the 'here moves' remark". Is that a professional attitude? A professional teacher's attitude, maybe. But Wikipedia is not a schoolbook, and it doesn't have real, live teachers you can ask.
Let me put it yet another way. If you want to learn, you turn to your teachers, who don't know everything, but can teach you how to find out for yourself. But what do you turn to when you want to find out for yourself? An encyclopedia that talks like your teacher, or an encyclopedia that gives you "just facts" (that are "dry and boring" only if you don't care about reading them anyway)?
Your goals are commendable, but I think you're focusing your efforts in the wrong direction. If you're not already there, you may be interested in knowing about Wikibooks. We do write books fit for education there; we even have the Wikiversity. But think about it this way: books in the Wikiversity, written to educate, should be able to refer to articles in Wikipedia, that must remain neutral, factual, and written without any particular agenda in mind — even the desire to "educate" the reader in the sense of "learning them to think effectively". We must bottom out somewhere.
For now, I've not edited the article for lack of time (this little spiel took long enough as it is :-) but I do plan on coming back to it. Be prepared. ;-)
PS. If you're a geologist, can you do something about pebble? I've always wanted to expand this, but I don't have the background required to do it well. (Pebbles are used in industry for polishing, for example, and there's pebble beaches, and who decides what size a pebble must have anyway before you can call it a pebble, and what are pebbles typically made of, and how do they come to be, and...) JRM 09:14, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Here is here. Here is the opposite of there.[edit]

Yes! We actually have an article on "here"! And it's full of meanginful content, too! This is the coolest article I've seen all week.

- Pioneer-12 02:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There[edit]

This wasn't one of the most interesting articles I've read on Wikipedia, but it did prompt me to look over There and I realised that Here was more interesting... Carcharoth 21:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That's 'cause we're here at our 'here' and they're at their 'there' over there. And we're far better than they're. --62.49.12.235 11:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Now[edit]

In response to the point about philosophers wondering why sentient beings experience "now" at the same time, I'd like to ask: how would we know if they didn't? Jon Rob 13:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cosmic....[edit]

I'm somewhat amused by the idea of trying to define "here" on paper..... :P Zazaban 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Image of the earth?[edit]

You are here.

What if you aren't reading this on earth? If you're reading this article in space, you're not there.VDZ 11:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. I'm going to split hairs and say you are technically incorrect. The image was taken in "outer space" and just happens to prominently feature the planet Earth, a body in outer space. Since it is impossible to include a single picture that depicts the entire expanse of the universe, there has to be some kind of arbitrary cutoff due to scaling requirements. How's that? dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No, outter spase is beyond Mars's orbit. -lysdexia 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't be silly: see outer space.
--Jerzyt 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That pesky "you are here image"[edit]

You are here, Beast of traal!

Just to document: I have deleted the pesky image for the following reasons: A) Not everyone is in Africa B) It makes me uncomfortable to use such un-encyclopedic grammar

Beast of traal T C _ 03:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal

Oh, and upon reading the previous section, I do believe wikipedia should not make assumptions about the position of the reader, no matter how obvious the assumption is. Also the image does not contribute to the article. Beast of traal T C _ 03:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
Wikipedia should not follow your believes, %username% Carn (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is history of a page?[edit]

I want to find text of article, that was here. Carn (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

or page, there was made a decision of such deletion.Carn (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
21:44, 22 November 2007 ... (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Here" ‎ (deleted to make way for move)
Its history (including the former text) is accessible only to admins, so you should probably explain what you want to learn and why your doing so would further WP's purposes. (There are probably no relevant old revisions at [1], which is equivalent to clicking on the "history" link at Here.)
(Supposedly, per [2] there is a lk to Here from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/New criteria, but i can't find that lk, even tho the page is unchanged in the last 5 months. [shrug] You may be interested in any case in pages listed on that Edit History page.)
--Jerzyt 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!Carn (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Translate?[edit]

ru:Здесь достаточно хорошая статья. Article about here. Where should I translate it? Carn (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Here. That is, into this talk-page section. We have no article on here, but you can make a case for your translation being a basis for something encyclopedic. I for one am skeptical, and you should bear in mind that
  1. In most areas, they make their decisions and we make ours, so it's unlikely their "precedent" will carry much weight.
  2. I don't know much about Russian (other than Мір і дружа), but i do know there's no definite article in the language. That's so unthinkable in most languages (Russell and Whitehead made a point of defining notation that let them express in symbolic logic the distinction between "There are no gold mountains" and "The golden mountain does not exist") that you may have to satisfy your colleagues that the Здесь above means sufficiently close to the same thing as the Here in
    Here - the sufficiently good article
--Jerzyt 23:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's about symbolistic forms philosofy. ubiquity of God, Hegel and here-existence vs. whole-existence, Martin Heidegger and ontological problem of "here" meaning... you should wait for philosofy expert to write it.Carn (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Repetition[edit]

Why do we need album, song etc in the description when it is already in the article name? Abtract (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Come again? Which example(s) do you speak of? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In this dab page ... several examples. Abtract (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And you can't come up with any? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Here (play), a play by Michael Frayn and Here (song), a song by Tony Martin for example. Could you not see those? Abtract (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Those are fine where they stand. Do you not understand that? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But do you not see my point? "Play" is repeated as is "song" ... I have a feeling [mos:dab]] gives examples just like that but it feels like wasted words and its inelegant. Maybe I should take it there to discuss. Abtract (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This undiscussed edit changes nothing. According to J, it's good to repeat the little words. Can't find the particular diff ATM though. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

/*/*Change lead classification add links*/*/[edit]

-Change from: Here is an adverb that means "in, on, or at this place". It may also refer to:...

-Change to:Traditional Western grammars generally classify words into parts of speech; Here fits in many classifications of parts of speech, like philosophy of presence. It may also refer to:...

  • Removed dictionary classification; Broaden-update this Wikipedia reference article;[1] thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ^ Google dictionary shows its many classifications