Talk:現在地

現在地 (げんざいち, genzaichi) is common on maps in Japan for the same use as English "you are here".

現在位置 (げんざいいち, genzaiichi) is common on maps in Japan for the same use as English "you are here".

The former seems to be more common. The latter I first spotted on the ferry from Okinawa to Kagoshima, but have now found it to be the most common form here in Hokkaido, or at least in Sapporo.

When reverting the request from the JA requests page, rather than offering first an explanation in the page as is the usual custom, this was the edit comment:

Atitarev (Talk | contribs | block) [rollback 2 edits]

(→‎け, ケ (ke, ge): removing obvious SOP 現在位置, please refrain from referencing the word, which is not accepted in multiple places

What is it that makes 現在位置 an "obvious" SOP and "現在地" not? The first is certainly not a sentence as it has no verb. What is the unmentioned "obvious" method distinguishing these two?

Apparently this word is "not accepted in multiple places". Does this mean it's not used to Atitarev's knowledge, that its use is proscribed? Which multiple places are these? — hippietrail (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference between 現在位置 and 現在置 is that 置 is used as a component and is used in some dictionaries but 現在位置 is made of two words with no changed meaning when combined. "Multiple locations" are places where you added it to "related terms" as if it were already accepted as a future term. This term wouldn't pass RFV, if it were created, so there's no point for anyone to create it for you there's no point for the aggressive tone. Check RFT or RFV if you want to have a go but don't use it as a single word and to promote the inclusion. You can try 現在位置, which splits it in components. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been aggressive. I've been doing what I've been doing for twelve years. I took your removal of the request with the comment "obvious" instead of answering in the request page as aggressive. I see you now also claim to have a power of knowing in advance what will and won't pass RFV without having to go through the process.

I haven't included it as a single word anyway, just as a link because I can't tell if it's a single word, an idiom, a set phrase, or a phrasebook entry. All I know is that maps in Japan have two very similar turns of phrase and we make no mention at all of one of them. I don't see how pretending one doesn't exist helps anybody. If you wanted to use your knowledge of "obvious" things to help learners coming up against this pair of word vs. nonword entities I would at least have understood if you added something to the Usage notes of the three-character term, or an example usage to either of the two-character terms that comprise the four-character non-term.

With the ever changing policies over the past twelve years I do not know whether things such as 現在位置 are acceptable, or in which contexts they are to be used. For it can be interpreted several ways such as being both a single item and two separate items at the one time. — hippietrail (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you have many years of experience at Wiktionary, why don't you know what SoP is and if you don't know if it's a single word/set phrase or a phrasebook entry, why do you insist on having it? It doesn't pass any CFI test for inclusion and I'm usually considered a pro-keep in most RFD discussions. I have removed it from requested entries because the entry is not going to be created. I am sure other editors would be of the same opinion. I know what gets deleted regularly, I have been an editor here for many years as well and I know enough Japanese to make this judgement. I'll repeat, 現在位置 doesn't appear in any respectable dictionary, it's not idiomatic and its meaning is understood from its parts. If you want to push with the creation, check it with the broader community. No need to fight me. I'm not an authority but I know what is includable and what is not, if you disagree, make the entry yourself and see what happens. I have already learned my lessons. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Dude, it was me who started the fight against sum-of-parts years ago! At the time I lost the battle and things like fried egg, boiled egg, and for a long time much sillier things like item of furniture became commonplace. One of my arguments at that time was also about what respectable dictionaries contain. I lost that battle too and the opposing position was usually "Wiktionary is not paper". Be careful throwing around history lessons when you don't know the history. Anyway it seems the tide is turning to some degree, hopefully across all languages and not just some. I'm glad some sanity is appearing in this regard and I think I've said before that I usually find you to be a voice of reason when I can keep up with discussions here and remember peoples' nicks/handles.

Of course it's not always cut-and-dry as to what is and isn't SOP. 現在位置 was such a case. I added it in good faith based on its similarity and same usage as 現在地. Now that doesn't mean my entry was right. I reverted the revert not because I was insisting, because it's a good way to make sure somebody notices and then engages in the proper discussion rather than aggressively removing all mention of the new term with nothing constructive happening as a result.

I don't know what passes CFI these days, but you can see it's changed massively and/or been interpreted in significantly different ways over the years. I've seen it sway to and fro rather than stabilize. Statements such as "I have removed it from requested entries because the entry is not going to be created." just make it look like you want to own the Japanese entries or the Japanese request page. For years the requests pages have been places to share thoughts on requests rather than just nuke them from on high.

I'm not pushing the creation and I'm not fighting you. Anything I've done has been either to make sure I get the attention of whoever is reverting without educating, whether it's you or anyone, or ... oops I lost my train of thought on the other point.

Anyway the only thing left is the fact that the "word" and the "sum-of-parts noun phrase" are very very similar and are used for the same purpose. It does not seem the best course of action to not mention the longer version on the page of the shorter version, even if the longer version does not merit any kind of entry.

I'm going to add a Usage note to the entry for the shorter "word" mentioning that a longer variant exists that is not a word. Please feel free to massage it into shape. — hippietrail (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Dude, don't consider it aggressive if it's removed from the requested entries page. There's no point in keeping it there. Some old discussions are kept there for no reason and it's hard to see new, valid request between the lines. I thought the summary and the explanation was sufficient. I didn't know you were going to insist or you'll want to discuss it further. I, Eirikr, Haplology, Wyang don't "own" Japanese words but we do add valid entries and remove old discussions or terms we consider not meeting CFI. I just don't think it's worth spending time on entries that may get deleted and hope no-one will notice. As I said, you're welcome to start a tea-room discussion about specific words or get a second opinion. If you disagree with future removals from request pages, I'll ping you and wait for your answer, I promise. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)