Talk:Superpower/Archive 3

message: Hello
Why does it say: Demographic - Population of approximately 280 million. Large, well educated labour force for the US. But not well educated force in the Soviet Union, The Soviet Union hade more people who hade passed higher education then the US hade. (Deng 02:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: I know many of you want to remove them from this page but I wanted to cast a vote here (as there are less contributors to the actual Potential Superpower pages) to change their names to Emerging Superpowers. Why?
A) It is a fact that they are emerging superpowers and 
B)It makes it sound less like crystal-balling 
C)will stop people ridiculing the articles with comments like Potential Millionaires - Me or Potential Superpowers - Papua New Guinea as you can't call PNG an emerging superpower but it may have very distant potential.
D) If we work on the articles we could remove all indications of crystal-balling and just leave the reader to analyze a list of facts from the present and past, as opposed to enforcing any sort of opinion.
I would like this to be a vote and possibly be kept open for a few days before we speedily rename the articles. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Requested moves is the place to request and vote on article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. Normally, logged in users can do uncontroversial moves themselves using the [move] tab found he top of every page (see Help:Moving a page for more information). However, sometimes this does not work because the target is already occupied (usually in the form of a redirect with a page history). In other situations a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus." I'm not sure whether this move can be considered controversial...I've put a note on the talk pages of each of these articles so that people can vote here, as you can see at the top of each article Those articles are sub-articles of Superpower. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 02:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no offence to any users meant here. But I was just wondering on whether Anon users have voting rights, as I have not seen any anon users voting on Rfa or FA or Featured Portal or even Rfd. I think this is because one anon user can, even though I have no suspicions in this particular article, go on many different computers can build up a large number of votes. This is in light of the results after around a week of voting 6 Support, 5 Object (inc. 3 anon). Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: With all due respect "a nod to reality"? Can you prove to me with 100% certainity that all three candidates will become superpowers? If even one of the three doesn't, the title "emerging superpowers" is inappropriate.It's not because people think/hope/strive/... that it will be the case, even if the majority of people think so.  Sijo Ripa 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emerging Superpower does not give an absolute sense of certainty, but it is clear that these three nations are already very strong and are in a period of unparalleled growth, therefore it is clear that they will maintain their power for a long time. If I wanted to give a sense of certainty I would say Future Superpowers. If you have a better title than Emerging than please present it and we can have a vote on it. Potential can no longer be used as it reeks with crystal-balling and perhaps even provokes crystal-balling. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential/Emerging Superpowers 

message: Enter any comments on the topic here Nobleeagle  (Talk) 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Requested moves is the place to request and vote on article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. Normally, logged in users can do uncontroversial moves themselves using the [move] tab found he top of every page (see Help:Moving a page for more information). However, sometimes this does not work because the target is already occupied (usually in the form of a redirect with a page history). In other situations a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus." I'm not sure whether this move can be considered controversial...I've put a note on the talk pages of each of these articles so that people can vote here, as you can see at the top of each article Those articles are sub-articles of Superpower. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 02:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no offence to any users meant here. But I was just wondering on whether Anon users have voting rights, as I have not seen any anon users voting on Rfa or FA or Featured Portal or even Rfd. I think this is because one anon user can, even though I have no suspicions in this particular article, go on many different computers can build up a large number of votes. This is in light of the results after around a week of voting 6 Support, 5 Object (inc. 3 anon). Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Comments 

message: *Support I believe we need to change the names based on the reasons I've presented above. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect "a nod to reality"? Can you prove to me with 100% certainity that all three candidates will become superpowers? If even one of the three doesn't, the title "emerging superpowers" is inappropriate.It's not because people think/hope/strive/... that it will be the case, even if the majority of people think so.  Sijo Ripa 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emerging Superpower does not give an absolute sense of certainty, but it is clear that these three nations are already very strong and are in a period of unparalleled growth, therefore it is clear that they will maintain their power for a long time. If I wanted to give a sense of certainty I would say Future Superpowers. If you have a better title than Emerging than please present it and we can have a vote on it. Potential can no longer be used as it reeks with crystal-balling and perhaps even provokes crystal-balling. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: Shouldn't space technology be included in a wider technological superiority criterium? Reason: USA and USSR were superpowers before they put people into space or build spacestations. Even more: certain technology can be more important than space technology. Sijo Ripa 23:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's even better. Didn't like the technology criterium either, as more technology only means more economic power and military power (stealth, WMD, missile technology, satellites, etc). Disliked the specific space technology criterium even more though. Sijo Ripa 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology criteria. Vote to replace space tech for technology factor