Talk:Here

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Amused

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Spacetime and ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  This article is an embarrassment 

message: 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.
#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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  You are here, bipedal watersack 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Here is here. Here is the opposite of there. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[There]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Now 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, outter spase is beyond Mars's orbit. -lysdexia 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be silly: see outer space. --Jerzy•t 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the earth? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia should not follow your believes, %username% Carn (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: That pesky "you are here image"

message: 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)
replies: text: Come again? Which example(s) do you speak of? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this dab page ... several examples. Abtract (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can't come up with any? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Those are fine where they stand. Do you not understand that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk • edits) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: -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;Google dictionary shows its many classifications thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  /*/*Change lead classification add links*/*/