To get back to the OP: yes, many historians think of the period from World War 1 through World War 2 as a single conflict. There are good reasons to do so. The redrawing of boundaries in the Balkans and the Middle East led to continuous small wars, Italy started a war in Ethiopia, and the Japanese invaded China in the 1930s, just to name a few. (The Cold War was a direct continuation of WW2 so that is often connected to the whole as well, as it should be.)
They want students and the public who reads their works to understand the world wars in the larger worldwide context, especially important for Americans. American isolation and chauvinism meant that the public didn’t care much about “foreign wars,” resented getting involved in them, and afterward told themselves that they swooped in and saved an ungrateful world. I support any efforts to give Americus ignoramus a good kick in the pants.
But while good history is taught this way, I don’t know of any concerted effort to rename the wars. WW1 and WW2 are too ingrained in the public mind. And even if they were combined, the effort to include earlier “world” wars has even less support. They weren’t truly world wars in the sense that nations from all over the globe were combatants and America was peripherally involved at most, meaning that they have little traction in the public mind.