Talk:Second Cold War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Cold War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Second Cold War be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other websites. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Cold War 2
Google trends on Cold War 2 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=RU&q=cold%20war%202
Use of the term in google news: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cold+war+2
2A00:1370:8172:4F3:D99:E505:2651:5D3A (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Length of the introduction
@Choucas: Hey there. You tagged the lead paragraph as "too short". What else should the lead summarize? George Ho (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- This is a four sentences lead for a >6000 words article, so to me it is almost more "what else should the lead not summarize" at the moment honestly. In my opinion, the first paragraph should be about the definition, past predictions and use during the first cold war; there should be a full paragraph for the multilateral context, another one for USA vs Russia, and another one for USA vs China. The sizes of each of these sections definitely warrant it, and since each of these three has three subsections, one sentence for each would be reasonable. Choucas 🐦⬛ 16:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree with having four separate paragraphs about every key point you mentioned. However, I added another paragraph but have still intended to describe key points very briefly, if not concisely. I don't want the lead to exceed the brief sections about past usages in the original Cold War and "past predictions". As figured, one sentence describing each would be enough. George Ho (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think it is much better like this already, yes. Choucas 🐦⬛ 18:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree with having four separate paragraphs about every key point you mentioned. However, I added another paragraph but have still intended to describe key points very briefly, if not concisely. I don't want the lead to exceed the brief sections about past usages in the original Cold War and "past predictions". As figured, one sentence describing each would be enough. George Ho (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Is the Info box widely agreed upon?
question Entryin (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)