XIV

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 link "Cold War II" was added in August 2016. The addition has been disputed. Per Talk:Cold War II/Archive 1#RfC: Accuracy of the title, "Cold War II" should not imply that this is a successor to the Cold War. Shall the link "Cold War II" be retained/omitted? --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)※

Poll

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)※

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 XIV:Feedback request service)※
• 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)※
• 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)※
• 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)※
• 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)※
• Retain - No harm in a "see also" link. The page exists, and it is clearly related. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)※
• Retain: Per the above discussion and WP:ALSO. —Legoless (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)※
• Retain The inclusion of the link is supported by MOS, and I can't see one reasonable argument for removal. AlexEng 21:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)※
• 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)※
• 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 - /_{contributions} 00:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)※

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.