Talk:global society

RFD discussion: November–December 2014
Looks SOP too --Type56op9 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this too. I suspect it may be idiomatic. Donnanz (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unsure, it depends on usage. However, I think it falls under global sense "concerning all parts of the world." So delete, or provide evidence of idiomaticity. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The definition, the absence of citations or even usage examples fail to justify even a suspicion of idiomaticity. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per DCD. Equinox ◑ 18:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as alt of global village: the latter ain't SOP Pur ple back pack 89  18:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But it is not an alternative form, which we usually (and should always) limit to inflectional and orthographic variations of ordinary terms, permitting greater variation only for more extended idioms and proverbs. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep anyway. IMO, this is ambiguous as to whether it's SOP or not. Pur ple back pack 89   19:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also suspect that it's a mass noun - no plural. Donnanz (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "much/little global society"? I "suspect" not. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably a mass noun, but I think global societies is grammatically correct. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  19:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why all the fact-free opining? Don't you know how to construct a fact-based rational argument? DCDuring TALK 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's an argument,, it's just one you happen to disagree with. That does not necessitate accusing us of "fact-free opining".  You need to tone it down: it's not the end of the world if this is kept.  There's no need to tear us down because we're on the other side of the discussion from you. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * re: "Oh, it is an argument": That is an example of yet another unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable assertion, just like the evidence-free assertion or "suspicion" that the term in question is idiomatic. Could you please direct me to what you think is an argument? The amount of empty blather that you are responsible for will risks killing participation in this page and thereby letting Wiktionary turn into Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the suspicion of it being idiomatic an argument? Why isn't being the alternative form of an existing word an argument?  Again, you're claiming arguments you don't like aren't arguments.  Also, "will risks" isn't grammatically correct, and my participation in RfD will neither risk killing nor will kill participation in this page, anymore than your tearing down Donnanz and I will. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion without any substantiation outside of itself. If a government censor said it, it would be an "argument" ad baculum. Since you don't seem to have any weapons to back up such an argument, you have to resort to persuasion, preferably rational persuasion, though you would not be the first to use other means here. Your arguments should connect to WT:CFI or to some reason why in this case CFI should be ignored. There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, but it is no substitute for fact-based argument.
 * Have you ever actually constructed a fact-based argument? It can be fun. Finding significant holes in an argument can be fun. Digging up evidence and researching authoritative sources can also be fun. So, go have some fun. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha. I've constructed fact-based arguments many times.  You're just resorting to bashing me and Donnanz, even though you seem to have forgotten I want this kept as alternative of only, because I think alternative of should be defined more broadly than you do.  But no amount of belittling me is going to get me to change my mind, and it's not going to get me to leave this project either. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "I've constructed fact-based arguments many times." Yet another assertion I'd like to see evidence for, in sufficient quantity to outweigh the blather. My argument noted that there are no citations or usage examples and that the definition also fits with an SoP interpretation. The last point could be challenged, forcing me to make more specific arguments. An assertion about one's "suspicion" is unchallengeable (One can't well say "I believe that you don't suspect that it is idiomatic.".), but also nothing more than an indication of how one would vote. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The "suspicion" line is Donnanz, not me. If you want arguments, look at the lead for the neutral RfD closure vote I started last week.  My argument is that, if WORDA WORDC is SOP, but it means the same thing as WORDA WORDB that isn't SOP, WORDA WORDC should either redirect to WORDA WORDB, or be listed as an alternative form of WORDA WORDB.  That preserves a bluelink at WORDA WORDC without a definition that's SOP.  I fail to see why you think that is unreasonable. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   00:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I refute thee thus: We do not treat "WORDA WORDC" as an alternative form of "WORDA WORDB" unless "WORDC" is an alternative form of "WORDB" in orthography. (I anticipated a possible objection in the previous rejection of your alternative form proposal.) Similarly our uses of redirects is usually intended to take a user from a non-lemma form to the lemma form of an entry. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy or guideline that says that, or is it just the way editors have done it? If it's the latter, it's just a matter of opinion.  I doubt its policy, and even if is, it's a bad one that doesn't take full advantage of what redirects and alternative forms do. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   00:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Practice is not the same as individual opinion. If you made more actual contributions in principal namespace instead of blather elsewhere, you might understand that. Practice is usually the result of a specific decision that is then used as a precedent for similar situations. Practice means that we have educated users to expect Wiktionary to behave in certain ways. We do not, or at least should not, violate those expectations unless we expect to make a substantial improvement. Significant changes in practice for English pages are brought to WT:BP not because a rule requires it, but because we like to operate by consensus as much as possible. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, now you're the one who's not making an argument. Practice isn't policy, and it can be ignored at any time because it isn't.  I think practice should be ignored in this case (and in all subsequent cases).  If you think it shouldn't, get a consensus to ignore it in this case, or to limit redirects to certain things (I will oppose this being enacted as policy).  Until you get one, I am entitled to vote to ignore practice, and you have to respect my right to do that. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   03:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the "substantial improvement" line, I do think it would make a substantial improvement if we had more words like global society, even if they were alt forms or redirects of existing articles. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  03:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We all know you constantly oppose policy. If you don't believe that policy is binding, and you don't believe that practice is binding, then what is binding? --WikiTiki89 03:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose all policy, I just think SOP/CFI should be demoted to a guideline. And I don't really see a need to have a lot of "binding" stuff if the Wiktionary could be made better without it.  I believe the Wiktionary would be better with more entries, and I believe SOP/CFI should be relaxed and current alt form practice should be ignored to allow that. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   03:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * what value do you see in having this entry?  Honest question.  I personally do not see how this term is idiomatic, or anything more than  + .  I also do not understand this term to be a synonym for, so your alt form argument leaves me confused.  By your reasoning, would  be another term to add?  I can't get a handle on your reasoning.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 04:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , it's the value of having an additional searchable term. Something people would want to look up, and stay here to look up rather than go elsewhere and never come back. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   05:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What would be the problem if they go to Global society instead? Do you have something against our parent project? A dictionary is not a good tool for understanding nuances of vague concepts.
 * I notice no difference between your attitude toward policy and your attitude toward practice and, for that matter, your attitude toward other Wiktionarians: you don't seem to care about any of them if they disagree with you. You can continue ignoring them at your peril. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a dictionary lol. If somebody wanted to know what a word meant, and we don't have it, they'd probably go to another online dictionary rather than an encyclopedia.  If they wanted a broader understanding of the topic, they'd have never gone here at all, but I don't think that "this is too broad" is a good reason for deletion of an entry; we have to try to define it.  As for this broad generalization about policy, practice and editors, I am hardly the only editor that disdains people that disagree with me.  And I again say that the only policy I disagree with is CFI, and only there I do it on RfD.  You don't see me re-creating tons and tons of previously deleted articles, just voting "keep" on articles.  That's 100% OK. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not where we discuss changing, demoting, or promoting WT:CFI. This is where we apply it on a case-by-case basis. Other discussions about WT:CFI are for WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your grammar nag is irrelevant, and your very own edit summary had an error too (using "I" instead of "me" for an object). And of course "I suspect X" isn't an argument. Anyone else could say "well, I suspect the opposite!" Arguments require thought and evidence. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "I suspect the opposite" is essentially DCDuring's argument. That and "Purplebackpack89 and Donnanz are needlessly opining."  DCDuring needs to ratchet it down a few notches.  The way he's talking, you'd think keeping this article is the end of the project as we know it.  Although, TBH, I'm not opposed to Wiktionary being more like Urban Dictionary. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * After e/c... The current definition is not idiomatic, in that this is simply  +  -- that's basically the canonical example of a sum-of-parts term.  Nor is the current def at  really sufficient: one could also have a global society [of plumbers], or a global society [of FILL-IN-THE-BLANK], and that has nothing in particular to do with either the societies of the world considered as a single entity, or with globalization as a sociological phenomenon.  This latter also demonstrates that global societies is entirely possible as a concept.  Any mass-noun-ness arises from the semantics of, which in different contexts can be used as a regular countable noun.
 * I'm happy to acknowledge that is idiomatic, but I fail to see how  is idiomatic.
 * Purplebackpack89, if you truly believe that we have anything to fear from Urban Dictionary of all things, then methinks you misunderstand the purpose, mission and intent of Wiktionary. Wiktionary is about as different from Urban Dictionary as an apple is from a potato. They are both foods, and many people like both, but that's about all that they have in common. Tharthan (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And the latter is called an . — Keφr 12:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-idiomatic sum-of-parts. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 20:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It's purely the sum of its parts. Tharthan (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it's idiomatic or a mass noun I'll leave that to others to research; I'm usually too busy researching Norwegian translations and inflections. But global society is a potential translation target; Weltgesellschaft is the subject of this article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltgesellschaft. Basically it refers to the globalisation that has occurred in recent decades creating a new global society, according to some social scientists. Donnanz (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but I'm not sure that German is the best language to use for demonstrating possible source languages justifying translation targets in English, given German's well-known proclivity for forming noun compounds. One amusing example not long ago was the now-deleted entry, with evidence provided in the form of a photograph of just such a storefront.  If lots of other languages have similar one-word terms for this phenomenon, then I think perhaps a case could be made for including  as a translation target.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that score, but some other languages can be just as guilty, including the Scandinavian languages. But, lo and behold, in Norwegian it's "et/eit globalt samfunn" or "det globale samfunn", and in Danish "et globalt samfund" or "det globale samfund". I can't win. Donnanz (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that word should be spelt Fußboden- in lower case (except Switzerland), and FUSSBODEN- in capitals, as in the photo. And I know of a dictionary which has it, with the translation "a shop that hires out floor sanding machines". So there you go. Donnanz (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know someone has it. That said, I don't think this word would make a good candidate reason for creating a translation target entry for .  :)
 * As an aside, I thought Germany's spelling changes proscribed the scharfes S anymore, in favor of a simple double-S? Or was that just Switzerland?
 * Also, why all caps? I thought nouns just took initial capitalization.  Curious, &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 23:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, there's a bit of explaining to do - "ß" is only used in lower case, and there is no equivalent in upper case so "SS" is used - also there are no words beginning with "ß", so there is no real need for a capital letter version. In the last German spelling reform "ß" was replaced by "ss" in some words, but other words such as Fußboden kept it. In Switzerland, I believe there was not enough space on their keyboards, originally on typewriters, for all the characters, this being due to having to cater for French as well. I guess the easiest solution was to do away with "ß" altogether, replacing it with "ss", thus freeing up a key for another character. Donnanz (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One important point you forgot to mention is that "ß" is a ligature of "ss" anyway. --WikiTiki89 00:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)