Template talk:Cold War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Military history WikiProject | |
|---|---|
 |
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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. |
| TMP | Templates do not require a rating on the quality scale. |
| WikiProject Cold War | (Rated NA-Class) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 November 15. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Absolutely terrible template
It's been said before, but this template is just terrible: ugly, useless, biased, and way too big. Its sections should be arranged in rows rather than columns, and should be hidden by default. --jacobolus (t) 01:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- {{World War II}} has been condensed to a more tolerable size through consensus (used to be huge as well). The same thing can happen here if it is agreed which articles should not be linked. First I will try to keep the column format because it is easier to read. –Pomte 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent job. Skeezix1000 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I converted this template to use {{Navbox generic}} which accomplished converting the columns to rows and also made it default to a collapsed (hidden) state. -- Zyxw 07:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sputnik Crisis
Is this something that should go on the template? It had a dramatic affect on people's perceptions of the Soviet Union in the United States. Hires an editor 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Template
For anyone who is following this template, a new one has been created for notable figures in the Cold War, in case you are interested. It's here. Hires an editor (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- The problem with this new template is that it doesn't solve any of the problems that existed back in the day when this existing template contained lists of Cold War personalities. The list of persons was subject to constant edit-warring back and forth over the figures that ought to be included. How do we avoid that with the new template? I'm not sure what is meant by "notable" (the new template is titled "Notable figures of the Cold War"), but at it's most basic it means anything who has their own Wikipedia article and had any involvement in the Cold War. How do we keep this template manageable? Past attempts at developing some sort of inclusion criteria resulted in draft rules that were somewhat arbitrary and subjective, and would have been open to differing interpretations. I can assure you that even I find the current list of personalities on the new template lacking -- as a Canadian, I'd add two more names (Trudeau, Gouzenko). Others may scoff at those additions, but I have to tell you many editors will have strong opinions as to who needs to be added, and many editors (coming from all parts of the globe) will have different views as to who was "notable". I am not sure that improving the category would not be a better manner to proceed, unless some solution can be devised.
I also wonder if the new template is even necessary. The events, ideologies, doctrines, etc. in which these figures were involved are all listed here. Listing the individuals again separately strikes me as overkill.
My biggest concern, however, is that people used to constantly complain that this template was too big (and questioned whether the template was even necessary). The list of Cold War personalities was a problematic portion of the template that was removed, in part, to address that concern. Now that this template is collapsible as its default setting, size is perhaps less of a concern. However, adding a new template just restores more Cold War-related clutter to the bottom of the article pages. Many of the articles on these figures already contain a good number of templates -- does the article on Winston Churchill, for example, really need yet another template? Does it need two Cold War templates? Is this not template creep? Again, it begs the question as to whether the category for Cold War figures, perhaps improved and appropriately subcategorized, is not a better route to take, rather than maintaining a second template.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of a template for Cold War figures. I just think there needs to some thought and discussion that goes into this.Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with this new template is that it doesn't solve any of the problems that existed back in the day when this existing template contained lists of Cold War personalities. The list of persons was subject to constant edit-warring back and forth over the figures that ought to be included. How do we avoid that with the new template? I'm not sure what is meant by "notable" (the new template is titled "Notable figures of the Cold War"), but at it's most basic it means anything who has their own Wikipedia article and had any involvement in the Cold War. How do we keep this template manageable? Past attempts at developing some sort of inclusion criteria resulted in draft rules that were somewhat arbitrary and subjective, and would have been open to differing interpretations. I can assure you that even I find the current list of personalities on the new template lacking -- as a Canadian, I'd add two more names (Trudeau, Gouzenko). Others may scoff at those additions, but I have to tell you many editors will have strong opinions as to who needs to be added, and many editors (coming from all parts of the globe) will have different views as to who was "notable". I am not sure that improving the category would not be a better manner to proceed, unless some solution can be devised.
[edit] Image
I think templates work much better with an image and wonder if the Berlin Wall might be a good one for this template? Can anyone produce a thumbnail which looks good? --BozMo talk 11:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Participants
Interesting that the Participants section at the top doesn't list the US/Soviet Union, etc...Of course, in some ways, "Participants" is too many nations to list, and then there's the organizations. What got me thinking of this is that "People's Republic of China" got removed, and then I realized that NATO and Warsaw Pact are listed, but SEATO was a relatively minor organization in comparison to the other two, and it's listed. Any thoughts on how "Participants" should be listed? Hires an editor (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.R.China was the key swinging power during the cold war. It largely overthrew the whole communist pack. After WWII, at beginning, China was quite closer to the USSR, then splitted, isolated from the rest of the world. After Nixon's visit, China immediately adapted many capitalist systems, thus became a "hybrid".
- Two biggest "hot" war after the WWII, USSR was very "cheap", main forces were USA and China. During the Korean War, NK was mainly aided by China and China sent 0,92 million standard army there. During the V war, North Vietnam was mainly supplied logistically by China (incl. food, strategies and weapons), and China sent 0,31 million soldiers (0,17 million at peak in 1969). Oppositely, both SK and SV were heavily supported by the US. The collapse of USSR was largely due to itself and these 2 nations (USA & China), imaging USSR deployed ~1 million army plus huge military complexes in Siberia, Mongolia and the far east (mainly forests and deserts) which was unsustainable, to prevent China... Even USSR's Afghanistan war was heavily influenced by US and China.
- (Largely) to fit US' appetite, Deng Shopping invaded Vietnam (communist country and solid ally of USSR), which surprised the world.
- So, indeed, the Cold-war G2 were USSR (Warsaw) and USA (NATO), and the key swinging (also called "plus 1") power was China. It balances and weighted between the two, and also largely decided the future would do (when it went against the USSR then kissed the USA, the fate or destiny of both the whole communist pack and the USSR would be very sure).
- Then we should say that the USA was the biggest winner of the cold war, and it played the "China Card" very well. However, China's largest or the most direct thread came from the USSR, so it was also very smart to "borrow" or "use" American force to diminish its thread asap. China also saw and felt its dieing system, the degradation of its whole communist social-economic machine, through opening to the west (esp.), the communist China saved itself also its party, on some level. China could also be counted as a big winner, but such win was not so direct seen as the USA's, Such win is very subtle and will show out or appear more and more clearly. People can already see that two decades after the cold war, the US dominance, again, is relatively declining, just similar to that after the WWII corresponding to the rise of USSR. But, this time, it would be a multipolar world in future. But again, if you count the population of China (roughly equals to the whole western world's), the prediction also can go under, plus the late boomer India: China - India would be the ultimate match. (Alice Muller (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC))
[edit] Addition request
I suggest that the Salvadoran Civil War be added to the template. The article states it as being part of the Cold war, yet it is absent from the template. I request this because I am a new user and cannot edit this template. Thanks --Thekidfromiowa (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is particular item is listed under an umbrella term of "Central American Crisis", because it was part of a larger conflict in that region, even though it was local at the same time. Hires an editor (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
