| Revision as of 02:51, 27 October 2020 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,210 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Superpower/Archive 12) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:52, 16 November 2024 edit undoKlbrain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers87,575 edits →Merge proposal: Potential superpower: Closing; no merge |
| (104 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=mid|pol=yes|hist=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|counter = 13 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Superpower collapse| 15 March 2024}} |
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}} |
|
|
|
{{merged-from|Superpower disengagement| 11 May 2024}} |
|
<!-- Talk page begins here. --> |
|
<!-- Talk page begins here. --> |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie","appear":{"revid":490700302,"parentid":485790865,"timestamp":"2012-05-04T21:53:51Z","replaced_anchors":{"Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie":"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1160717353,"parentid":1160716083,"timestamp":"2023-06-18T09:43:15Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=7 June 2024|destination=Superpower (politics)|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1229440734#Requested move 7 June 2024}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? == |
|
== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? == |
| Line 31: |
Line 34: |
|
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report. |
|
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unilateral edition == |
|
== Removal of "Superpowers of the past" section == |
|
|
|
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Misplaced Pages, at least it shouldn’t be. |
|
|
|
|
The subject of the article is not the ''word'' "superpower", but the concept. The common usage, in the vast majority of cases as found in a books and web search, is the idea of the post-WWII superpowers, especially the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., as well as "emerging superpowers" such as China on the global stage. The fact that a few authors have used the word to refer to past empires (and often in "scare quotes" to indicate non-standard usage) can be mentioned, but it's not really significant to an understanding of the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
The "Superpowers of the past" section appears to be an indiscriminate, mostly-random subset of the ] and ]. The fact that a book once used the word "superpower" to describe some historical empire is not an important aspect of the subject. Most of the citations don't actually use the word "superpower", and half the entries are unsourced. A long list of examples of past ] in this article is ]. It also has no clear criteria for inclusion, and entices people to just add their favorite article to it, amounting to original research. |
|
|
|
|
|
I've added a concise paragraph to the end of the "Terminology and origin" section, that explains that the term is sometimes also used colloquially to refer to past great powers, and given two examples of works that have used the term in that way. It also links to the above two lists of great powers. I think this is sufficient coverage of it, and the "Superpowers of the past" section should be deleted. --] (]) 22:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The section has now been deleted. --] (]) 19:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 27 November 2019 == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Not moved'''; yes, numbers are roughly equal, but references to ] do not outweigh both criteria for primary topic. As an aside, I commend those doing the thankless work of fixing links. {{rmnac}} ] ] 23:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Superpower (politics)}} |
|
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Superpower}} |
|
|
– Does not appear to be the obvious primary topic. By pageviews, the , but since the ability also gets around 400 daily, it is not "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." One out of every 4 readers wants the comic term and not the political one. <sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
*'''Oppose'''. 3:1 is pretty overwhelming. ] (]) 20:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' Since almost everyone going to the ability page probably goes to the political page too. The ratio is more like 2:1, which definitely mean it not the primary topic (in my opinion).<span class="nowrap">– ] (])</span> 21:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:*2:1 still seems pretty overwhelming. ] (]) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' The comic term appears more frequently in daily life. ] (]) 21:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Whose daily life? Are we living in the Marvel Universe now? ] (]) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Ask an average person on the street what a "superpower" is, and more than likely they'll say something like "Spiderman's web shooting" and not "a geopolitical force".<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 03:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom - '''''No''''' clear primary topic (especially since "almost everyone going to the ability page probably the political page too"). Move disambiguation page to basename. |
|
|
: I'm currently in the process of fixing dozens of links to the political concept that should be going to "]". The sheer number of mistaken links is telling. <small>] (])</small> 00:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:: '''Comment''' - In the last half an hour, I found and fixed 21 accidental links that didn’t mean to link here. |
|
|
:: Fixed 17 accidental links to "Superpower" that meant to link to "Superpower (ability)”: ...on ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. |
|
|
:: And 4 accidental links to "Superpower" that should have been to other topics with the name: ...on ] (to a wrestling tag team ]), ...] (to ]), ...] (to a film series without an article), ...] (to a comic book series without an article). |
|
|
:: ...Yikes. Like I said, the sheer number of mistaken links is telling. <small>] (])</small> 01:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::With all those bad links it still doesn't get near as many pageviews. ] (]) 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support move''' per nom. There is a most frequent topic, but there is no primary topic. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Weak support''' per Paintspot, getting a 3rd is enough to preclude "much more than any other" which would probably be 10x. ''']''' (]) 06:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Very clear primary topic in real world usage. -- ] (]) 14:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. There is a primary topic in terms of long-term significance, and the current page does indeed fulfill the page view requirement. ]<small>]</small> 16:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
== China == |
|
|
|
|
|
China is now more powerful than the United States. (] (]) 13:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Colour of neutral nations on Cold War allies map == |
|
|
|
|
|
The colour of neutral nations on the map is a light blue, but the NATO nations/allies are also blue. This could suggest that the neutral nations could be NATO allies. I suggest that neutral nations be coloured white on the map, to show their independence fron either side. ] (]) 14:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== English == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge proposal: Potential superpower == |
|
I want active superpower ] (]) 09:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Discussion top|result=To '''not''' merge, given that a merge would unbalance the target. It is agreed that a joint article would not be ]. ] (]) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page ] could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: '''Support.''' There's no reason to have two separate articles on basically the same subject. It dilutes editor efforts and results in lower quality articles. ] (]) 23:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' - Unless you're also suggesting large-scales reductions in detail the merged article is likely to be too long to be easily navigable. ] (]) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment'''- If the merge is accepted, I would encourage any editor to help boil down the merged section to remove redundant information and keep the page navigable. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Vastly different topics. ] (]) 07:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:*'''Support''', Upon inspection, both articles may cover different information, but there are some similarities. ] may have to do with this. |
|
== English == |
|
|
⚫ |
:] (]) 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support''' - It does not appear to me that ''potential superpower'' is recognized by sources a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article. ] (]) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Oppose'''- Per arguments listed above. These are different topics. ] (]) 23:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:*'''Comment''' per arguments listed above, do you have sources that assert this is a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article? |
|
|
*:] <sup> (]) </sup> 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose'''. Not because they are vastly different topics (yes, they are different concepts, but they are not that different so that they couldn't be merged), but because the "Potential superpower" article is so detailed and long and contains so many references that it would either bloat the other article or lose a lot of depth; I don't think it could be shortened to an adequate length where it could be merged without losing much background information. Also, the article is very likely to become even larger in the future, e.g., when other countries become candidates for potential superpowers or countries lose their status as a potential superpower and would therefore be moved into the "Former candidates" section and commonly cited reasons for their downfall would be given. ] (]) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
How can i ative it ] (]) 09:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] arguments are lacking in detail. |
|
|
:] is 1500 words and ] 3542. Combined they'd be 5042. That's less than the 6,000 minimum for justifying splitting. Even then, 6,000 is a lower bound suggestion; beginning from 8,000 it becomes a firmer recommendation. |
|
|
:Size split argument could go either way I think. I don't think what will or won't be a superpower will change so quickly that we should anticipate a significant expansion in either article. Imo what should be the deciding factor is how distinct of topics they are. ] (]) 12:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::When I wrote that merging the article would "bloat the other article", I was not referring to the total length; I rather meant that the merged content, when keeping the detailed descriptions, would make up a disproportionately large part of the article, thus already justifying its own article for better clarity, even considering that they are not vastly different topics. As for my argument that the "Potential superpower" article will become larger in the future, I can already see reliable sources coming up in the next few months or years with the idea that Russia is not a potential superpower anymore, which would mean we'd have to put it in the former candidates section, along with Japan, and add commonly cited reasons for why Russia is usually not seen as a potential superpower anymore or why its status is at least contested by academics. If we merged the article, that would mean that this article would cover three topics: The history of superpowers, potential superpowers, and former potential superpowers (including countries whose status as a potential superpower is heavily debated, such as perhaps Russia or even Brazil in the future). I don't think that's a concise solution. ] (]) 08:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion top}} |
The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection.
I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel.
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report.
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Misplaced Pages, at least it shouldn’t be.
Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page Potential superpower could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. GeogSage 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
