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.

The "Cold War II" page was created as a response to the possible tensions between the Russian and the West. Later, the section about the China–US relations was added. Sections about other relations were already moved to the article, "Cold war (general term)." Shall we do the same to this article? George Ho (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Oppose A separate Cold War II makes logical sense, because it is a "legitimate" successor, a "resurgence" of Cold War. The rest of "cold wars" are not. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeThe Cold War II article, is short, and can be merged into this article, as a cold war topic. If the Cold War II topic grows it can be split into its own article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: As per CuriousMind01, article splitting is always an option. Otr500 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Mostly because I don't think that Cold War II is the wrong title for an article about current US/Russia relations. The cold war that followed WWII was marked by massive military spending, spying, deep suspicion and relentless propaganda about communism vs. capitalism. While some of these things might exist in the current climate, they are simply too different. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Cold War II seems to refer to just Russia/China vs. Western tensions. Cold War (general term) refers to the use of the phrase cold war in general, and more minor diplomatic standoffs labelled cold wars by RS. Both articles are a decent length, and I see no reason to merge.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Cold War II presupposes the postwar Cold War ever ended. I think that's a contentious view without consensus in the academic and foreign relations communities. The merger should be in reverse order, merging Cold War II with Cold War to remove the inference that a separate or new phenomenon is occurring rather than this being a continuation of post war hostility. Invited to comment here by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – While not the longest article out there, there is enough material for a standalone article, and the topic is a "successor" to the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States and their respective allies. Dustin (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Well researched and good references documenting the topic. Sagecandor (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It is an entirely separate phenomenon that is described by reference to Cold War for lack of a better universally acknowledged term, thus far. As to its length, it has recently been drastically cut, which remains a dubious move.Axxxion (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: As per CuriousMind01 and Otr500. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Cold War II is about specific conflicts/scenarios, not the general term. Legoless (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Peter, I want to confront you about inserting "original research" into Cold War-related discussions. While WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, your proposal (merging into "Cold War") might violate the policy. If you are certain that Cold War has not ended, please either add stuff at Historiography of the Cold War or discuss the run of the Cold War at Talk:Historiography of the Cold War. You can repeatedly say the same arguments over and over as you did here and at Talk:Cold War II. I fear that your rationale and proposal would be discarded as one of unverified "conspiracy theories". But I must cooperate with you, and you must do the same with me. I found just this source, that source, this source, that source. George Ho (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC); edited, 05:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your grammar makes it difficult to unpick what you are saying. nevertheless, let me just point out that I was invited to comment by Legobot as an impartial observer. That I should express the same opinion about relate dtopics strikes me as indicating i have the same opinion on the same topic, not an attempt to do anything 'over and over'. To translate that into colloquial language: I don't much care what rules you think you know, what the decision will be, or what your own agenda is. I gave my opinion as an educated polymath whose reading list and understandings exceed any curated factoid link list. Wikipedia editors on this page will now choose to do exactly as they like, which is how things work around here, and reality be damned. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my... what would be the word you call it when I write less sensible words? Anyway, I'll rephrase for you, but I'm including the link that I discovered today. The last time you edited an article was 2013, Peter, three years ago. Why making an opinion rather than add content or fix typos and grammar in articles? Or why not become an analyst or a conspiracy theorist on Cold War instead of making a complaint or something? Or why not go to the website of Wikipediocracy and post something bad about Wikipedia? Or why not publish a book about the Cold War? George Ho (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin, the consensus agreed that "Cold War II" is not a successor to the "Cold War". --George Ho (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the consensus you mentioned had much to do with the implications of the title, which I am not arguing. Additionally, there was only limited participation in that discussion, even though I may agree with certain elements of its outcome. In this "cold war" (which has been mentioned in a number of sources, real or not), the two factions still remain mostly the same, with the more dominant usage involving Russia (in place of the Soviet Union) on one side and the United States and allies on the other. Even if you put the "successor" bit aside, I still do not see a compelling reason to merge Cold War II into this article (which it is larger than anyway). Dustin (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about China vs US months ago, Dustin. George Ho (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that. I said "dominant," and Russia vs. United States is definitely more common than China vs. United States. Dustin (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the title was discussed again, Dustin; the consensus said to retain that title. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that is supposed to be relevant. Dustin (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. It's just for the reminder; that's all. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axxxion, we have used Talk:Cold War II to reduce article issues, like original research and advocacy and propaganda. With a lot of talking, the article content was trimmed down from this to that to that to what it is now. I haven't seen you comment about the China vs. US yet. You were solely concerned about the Russia–Western relations, weren't you? George Ho (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what you are after: want to pick my brains on China. Know very little of the subject, but it is obvious the Chinese themselves are not about to be sold on this Western notion of "Cold War". They will just do real war when the chips are down. But looking at the relevant section in the article, what irks me is total absence of any indication of time there: "increased" when? "deployed" when?, etc.Axxxion (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2016 (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.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review 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: moved as proposed since the original request to remove "general" from the title has gone uncontested. There is no consensus on the secondary question of whether to remove the disambiguation altogether. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cold war (general term) → Cold war (term) – There's no need to say "general" here. This is the only article on enwiki that uses the disambiguator "general term", while 29 use just "term". I don't see why this should be any different. (N.B.: This is a somewhat unusual case where WP:DIFFCAPS has not been invoked [Cold war → Cold War], but I agree with that status quo. DIFFCAPS is ill-suited for cases where the only difference is the first letter of the second word in a two-word phrase, where many readers won't make a distinction between capitalizing or not capitalizing that letter.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. -- dylx 14:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternate move to Cold war Per WP:DIFFCAPS. It can still be clearly separated from the "Cold War" (proper noun) using hatnotes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Cold war per above comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to Cold war. Showiecz (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Cold war - I find anytime an article is disambiguated as (term) or (concept) or the like, its probably a misplaced primary topic. -- Netoholic @ 10:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move as proposed, oppose move to Cold war, per nom. The vast majority of the incoming links to Cold war refer to the Cold War and I can only imagine that the majority of readers who simply type "cold war" are looking for the 20th century conflict, too; pageviews in any case seem to suggest not many people are looking for the article about the term. Lennart97 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move as proposed, oppose move to Cold war, per nom and Lennart97. Additionally, the edit history at Cold war shows that most involved editors there thought that people typing "World war" in the edit box were looking for the US-USSR conflict. Sjö (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original proposal - per above. Also, eliminating the dab would not be beneficial to the project and its readers. George Ho (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]