(moved from SF's talk page)
I see you reverted my changes to here (disambiguation), but don't see how any of what you did is useful.
Here a noun? News to me. I've never seen it modified with an adjective, or preceeded by an article. And hither, a red link is not very useful, there, an essentially empty article, is not very useful, and for some reason one would want to go to location (geography)? I'll wait for your reply. Peace, Drmaik 03:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- The quality of articles doesn't particularly matter as far as linking to them- there is related to here as an antonym, so it's a good see also link. If for some reason the article on, say, the United States dollar is short, a stub, or otherwise bad... it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be linked to if the dollar is referred to. Also, Location (geography) is relevant because it's what "here" is.
- As for here being a noun, this is covered on the wiktionary page. I see that some dictionaries agree with you that it's only an adverb (Merriam-Webster for one), but while the use as a noun can be weird, it's grammatical. Used in the phrase "here and now," it should be even clearer- as an example, a politician might say "The corrupt here and now of President John Doe must be ended." An article and an adjective that make some sense; "and now" could be deleted from the sentence for a less felicitous turn of phrase. SnowFire 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- well, the examples on wikitionary are a case of false analysis: it's adverbial usage. But as long as it's not being stated as a noun here, I'm not going to worry. And 'here and now' having noun-like features doesn't mean that 'here' does. (It's like saying 'to' is a verb because of 'toing and froing)'. The USD comparison doesn't really work other, as these words are not referred to. I'm just disagreeing, not planning to revert or anything: I'm happy to leave it as it is. Drmaik 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)