The 'see also' section is for related articles per WP:ALSO, and it seems to me that the possibility of a future Cold War is relevant to this topic. By the logic on display here, the link NATO–Russia relations should also be removed; I'd argue that Cold War II is just as relevant. My restoration was reverted on the basis of "consensus", but I can't find any discussion about this issue on the provided talk page. As such, I've once again restored the link. Regardless of whether a new Cold War has been "verified" or not, the topic of a potential future Cold War falls squarely within the common sense definition of a "related article", and shouldn't be deleted without first obtaining consensus on this specific template. Legoless (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it's still a topic related to the Cold War even if it doesn't deal with a direct successor. Media-hyped or not, the article name was coined with regards to the Cold War, and the page's two listed conflicts deal with many of the same parties as the Cold War. If you really think the distinction needs to be highlighted in a navbox, the link could be appended as "NATO–Russia relations (Cold War II)". Personally I think the two articles are distinct enough to warrant separate links, and the discussions you linked above seem to agree with that sentiment. Legoless (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
RfC: "Cold War II" in the navigation template
The consensus is to keep the link "Cold War II" in the navigation template. There is no prejudice against revisiting this if the article's title is changed or a merger happens. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 The inclusion of the link is supported by MOS, and I can't see one reasonable argument for removal. AlexEng(TALK) 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 - chat/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.