This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This template was considered for deletionon2006 November 15. The result of the discussion was "keep".
RfC: "Cold War II" in the navigation template[edit]
The consensus is to keep the link "Cold War II" in the navigation template. There is no prejudice against revisiting this if the article's title is changed or a merger happens. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retain. Cold War II is in the See also section. Yes per WP:Also, the purpose of see also is to inform readers of related articles, either directly or tangentially related.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Don't see a problem. per WP:Also: ` ... one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.` --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (editor is a volunteer of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service)[reply]
Remove The supposition is that the so-called "cold war" ended which is not accurate, so "cold war 2" is inaccurate and misleading. Damotclese (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Include. However the close should probably note the outcome as a soft/fluid result. The article subject itself is not yet firmly established and defined. It is extremely subject to the flux of current events. There has been discussion of changing the article title, and of possible merger. It may well become appropriate to drop the link, if the current tentative RS usage of the term fizzles out. For now I think the article seems sufficiently related, and of sufficient interest, to include in the "see also" section of the template. Alsee (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain "Cold War II" probably needs a name change, but the article would be interesting to many readers of this template. LaTeeDa (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove No motive to include it here, or Syrian Civil War, or Iraq War, or anything contemporaneous. Bertdrunk (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - No harm in a "see also" link. The page exists, and it is clearly related. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The inclusion of the link is supported by MOS, and I can't see one reasonable argument for removal. AlexEng(TALK) 21:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain it's a valid link. I might agree with LaTeeDa about a different title but it's hard to see a viable alternative which encompasses both the US-NATO/Russia & US/China relationships. Cabayi (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain per above. Valid related topic. Name of the article can be changed, but the topic itself is certainly relevant to this template. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please get rid of "Radio Free Asia" under the Cold War heading. Radio Free Asia was founded in 1995, 4 years after the formal end of the Cold War. It is anachronistic. 129.115.2.245 (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done RFZYNSPY (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
