Talk:Superpower

American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered?

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'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world: https://kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/us_department_of_defense_-_base_structure_report_fiscal_year_2015_baseline_-_as_of_30_sept_2014_-_a_summary_of_the_real_property_inventory_-_206_pages.pdf

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

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 Wikipedia, at least it shouldn’t be.

Merge proposal: Potential superpower

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that a merge would unbalance the target. It is agreed that a joint article would not be WP:TOOLONG. Klbrain (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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 ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 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. Thenightaway (talk) 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. Rambling Rambler (talk) 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. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Vastly different topics. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support, Upon inspection, both articles may cover different information, but there are some similarities. WP:OVERLAP may have to do with this.

148.222.132.74 (talk) 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. Jno.skinner (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose- Per arguments listed above. These are different topics. Archives908 (talk) 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?

  GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 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. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:SIZESPLIT arguments are lacking in detail.

Potential superpower is 1500 words and Superpower 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. seefooddiet (talk) 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. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.