Jump to content

Talk:Second Cold War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cold War 2

[edit]

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)[reply]

Length of the introduction

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think it is much better like this already, yes. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 18:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Info box widely agreed upon?

[edit]

question Entryin (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]