Talk:Great power

message: Seeing the comments above I can see a certain agreement with the removal of the template, That's why I have removed from the page. I don't see other solution for Now. I Hope this can help, note that the template has been used only here.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough is enough. Well done! Pavlor (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Why was the template removed? I was used to the great powers template being visible on this page 21:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a "broad" consensus to remove the template. The template was a never ending source of disruption to this article (edit-warring over inclusion of various pet powers) and was based mostly on cherry-picked sources and original research. The article is much better without it. Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Again the template!

message: I propose merging Superpower and Potential superpower into Great power. The content in the first two articles largely duplicate and overlap with the content in Great power. To what extent there is a semantic difference between "superpower" and "great power", it can be described in Great power or Hegemony. A merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Great power. Thenightaway (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * Oppose - A superpower is not a great power. Per existing definitions, the classifications differ significantly. Not to mention, merging the three articles together will be a logistical nightmare and having all these similar sounding (but different in meaning and scope) terms in one article may confuse readers even more. Archives908 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * The definitions of great power and superpower are nearly verbatim in both articles, so I don't buy that the concepts are meaningfully distinct. Scholars overwhelmingly use the term "great power" and more commonly refer to "hegemons" (rather than superpower) to denote when one power is vastly dominant, so it makes sense to merge all content into Great power and Hegemony. As for the size problem, it's actually very easy to resolve. Most of the content in Superpower and Potential superpower is of exceedingly low quality, as it's poorly sourced (pop science books, non-peer reviewed papers and op-eds by pundits) and contains a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. A lot of the content can be deleted and it would be of no loss to readers. In fact, it would probably be good for readers. It's probably sufficient to merge two or three paragraphs into Great power and Hegemony, and that's it. Thenightaway (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

text: *Oppose -A superpower is not a great power. If the definitions are to close, that is a failure of the Wikipedia articles. Great powers and superpowers are completely different terms, used at different parts of history. Powers in terms of international have multiple categories. The model that these terms describing incldues superpowers, great powers, middle powers, and smaller/lesser powers. These are extremely well documented in literature outside Wikipedia.   GeogSage  (⚔Chat?⚔)  00:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

text: * Oppose Simplyred90 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose content may overlap but they are both different topics — Karnataka talk 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Great power is a 19th century term, while superpower is a Cold war era term. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal