Talk:2021

Mayan calendar

Should the 2021 have an entry about the end of the Mayan calendar?

No, it shouldn't. The Mayan Calendar ends in 2012. Steveo2

Doesn't the Happy Birthday copyright end in 2040? Steveo2

Right now it seems to be 2030, but that date keeps extending so chances are someday you'll be correct. --AeroKnight 19:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Fictional events from cultural works are not real events, so exits an expecific article named: Works of fiction set in 2021.--Vsuarezp (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a heading to this section to tidy up its formatting. Llewee (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Railway completions

See WT:RY#Railway completions. At the present time, I'm not going to tag other articles, but, if someone wants to, be my guest. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Between 1989 and 2021

2021 will be the first year to use digital different since 1989, which was the 10th and last year of the 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.154.28 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?  Nixinova  T  C  08:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Old Animated Films in the 2020s Decade

All the theatrical re-issues of old animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios will be re-released in theatres in the 2020s decade:

• Mulan (Summer 2021)
• Chicken Little (March 2022)
• Tarzan (Summer 2022)
• The Emperor's New Groove (Summer 2023)
• Meet the Robinsons (March 2024)
• Atlantis: The Lost Empire (Summer 2024)
• Bolt (March 2025)
• Lilo & Stitch (Summer 2025)
• The Princess and the Frog (March 2026)
• Brother Bear (Summer 2026)
• Wreck-it Ralph (March 2027) 15th anniversary
• Hercules (Summer 2027) 30th anniversary
• Frozen (March 2028) 15th anniversary

Note: All the theatrical re-issues of the 1997-2013 animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios (except for Fantasia 2000 (1999), Dinosaur, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, Tangled and Winnie the Pooh) will be re-released in theatres in the 2020s decade, once in March for 17 years and once in the Summer for 23 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.184.50 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Castro

@ExperiencedArticleFixer: Why is Castro's expected step down from Cuba's leadership internationally notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the rule of the Castro brothers was one of the most distinctive features of the Cold War in the 20th century (which was one of the most important things that happened in that century) and lasted for 62 years. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Artemis 1

Why is the proposed launch of Artemis 1 notable, without a year being set? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Beginning of the Third Decade of the Third Millennium

Isn't this a bit more objective, factual and relevant than claiming it's the second year of the rather arbitrary grouping of the '2020s'? While popular convention might dictate the decades are grouped from years ending in 0-9, it also tends to dictate millennia and centuries begin in years ending in 00, but Wikipedia doesn't buckle to that on any date pages, so why do it for decades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.143.131 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources refer to the 2020s rather than the third decade of the third millennium, and Wikipedia reflects the COMMONNAME. Also, this edit was unhelpful. Certes (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure tons of reliable sources also refer to 2000 as the beginning of the new millennium (as well as of the 2000s) and the 21st century, even if they do so erroneously. I mean there's a point where reflecting COMMONNAME is just misleading and/or wrong. It objectively is the third decade of the third millennium going by Gregorian year numbering. While it may also be the 'second year of the 2020s' it's also 'the 27th year of the 1993s' if we're just going to arbitrarily group years from points we deem pleasing or noteworthy in the Gregorian calendar, regardless of how the Gregorian calendar is actually structured from beginning. Popular belief isn't exactly the best way to go about comporting an encyclopedia is it. Yep, I received a warning for that edit and apologized, not sure what it has to do with this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.217.143 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a perennial topic, here is a link the last discussion on the subject so we all avoid wasting time. IP, if you look at the discussion pages for the years or decades articles you will find additional discussions with all essentially the same answer which is that the current numbering is perfectly fine. --McSly (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I've already read them. Basically amounting to "Well we're clearly totally wrong as is the popular consensus, but it's fine because enough people do it". Again, more than enough people refer to centuries and millennia beginning on years ending in 00 and 000... so why not change that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.217.143 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

First, please sign your posts properly by adding ~~~~ at the end of them. Second, since you seem to propose a change that would apply to all the year articles, here is not the right place to discuss it. You should instead go to the project page WP:YEARS. Make sure to bring reliable sources to back up your proposal. So far you have not brought any and no changes will happen without sources. --McSly (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

First, no. Second, noo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.217.143 (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

In the past my answer was that we could be following astronomical year numbering, which does have a year zero. This has recently been endorsed by the International Standardisation Organisation in ISO 8601. PatGallacher (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC) I mean anything is a better alternative than what we have at present which is just needlessly confusing and misleading. If you're going to count centuries and millennia from 1 across all pages then you obviously do the same for decades. Otherwise use the term 1000s etc. exclusively (but even that poses the very real and infuriating problem of the dwarf first decade/century/millennia if you adopt it). Didn't the ISO 8601 basically just adopt 1 BC as an effective 0 AD? How does that even work? To actually add a 0 AD wouldn't you need to effectively push back every single numbered year by 1 so that the coming 2021 would actually be 2020. Otherwise you're just fabricating a phantom year out of nowhere which never actually occurred. Another alternative would of course be simply starting a 'Third Era' with 2021 serving as the new 0 AD of the 'Third Era' or some alternative name. But again that would actually need to happen so all moot, just thinking aloud here, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.217.143 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That is something an encyclopedia should think about, but we already did so, and I see no new evidence or insights to invalidate the conclusions. The talk page for a single year is not the best page to discuss issues which apply to multiple decades. Certes (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you did think about it. And your conclusions repeatedly have been "Enough people do it so it's fine that we're wrong on this one". So again I ask why not adopt the exact same standard to centuries and millennia because more than enough people believe and claim centuries and millennia begin on 00 and 000 ending years. Either be consistently wrong or be consistently right. I don't really mind which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.217.143 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP, if you are not clear on how the current standard came about, you are welcome to go through the talk pages of all the relevant articles and project pages so you can find the answer. Not sure if you are expecting others editors to do that search for you but of course, that burden is all on you. After your search is complete, I guess, there are 2 options. If you are satisfied with the current standard, we are all good. If you think that standard should be changed, you can propose that change >>>>HERE<<<<. Don't forget to bring sources. --McSly (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm familiar with it but I find the conclusion extremely unsatisfactory and also am not really sure what reasoning can be achieved when you all seem to acknowledge it's wrong, but you're going to continue doing it anyway since it's more common for people to group decades that way. Again, it's more common for people to group centuries and millennia from 00 and 000 ending years too so why not adopt the same standard for all years across all pages. At the moment you're just adopting popular consensus and usage for decades and conforming to the Gregorian calendar for centuries and millennia which is just muddling things. I don't really know what sources you would need here. Again you're all acknowledging it's incorrect to group decades that way but it's just the commonly done thing. In fact on the 2000 AD article there's even a paragraph in the opening section about how people erroneously think 2000 is the beginning of the third millennium and 21st century and how that's not actually true according to the Gregorian calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.217.143 (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, as explained, you know what to do if you want to change the current standard. --McSly (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Jeddah Tower is NOT Expected to be Finished by 2021

In fact, from everything I've read about it, the tower's halted construction likely won't even be restarted (IF it is restarted) by 2021. I'm pretty sure it would be physically impossible for them to complete the tower by 2021 at this point even if full construction ramped up tomorrow. Estimated completion dates at this point seem to be around 2023 at the earliest from what I can gather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.66.219 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The UK Leaving the EU Common Market Removed

The UK will leave the EECa at midnight on January 1, 2021 if I'm not mistaken. Since no deal has been agreed and it's looking unlikely any deal will be agreed in the time remaining. Is this not worthy of a mention? Such an event will have wide reaching consequences on European (particularly British) and indeed global trade. It already was included in the scheduled events section. Any particular reason it's been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:CRYSTAL, as negotiations were continuing. Each side threatening WTO terms unless the other gives in doesn't make it a near certainty. The UK has already left the EU in theory; practical change will occur at the start of 2021 but we don't yet know its exact nature. Certes (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough I guess. Best just to wait until the official date itself. Did you see the recent statement from Boris Johnson saying talks were effectively over though? Is that still a little too unclear? I know the UK left the EU on January 31, 2020 but it doesn't leave the EEC until January 1, 2021 (assuming no deal to remain in it on some terms is agreed). I would hazard to say that the UK leaving the EEC will likely be far more significant than it leaving the EU itself, so I figured it was worth a mention as well. It will certainly be an extremely significant event anyway, at least I'd imagine.

Oh, the EEC doesn't even officially exist anymore. Regardless the official economic separation of the UK from the EU takes place on January 1, 2021 at midnight. Not sure how it should be phrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54566897 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the talks are back on today.[1] It's a moving target, with the world ending on 1 Jan if you don't do what I say being a negotiating position rather than a fact. Certes (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, not a hill I plan on dying on. Btw the 'Third Decade of the Third Millennium...', the 'Jeddah Tower...' and I suppose this section could all be removed from this talk page now. I tried to myself but it was autoblocked as potentially disruptive editing. Just seems needlessly cluttered since conclusions have been reached with little else to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Red Links

As I was reviewing over the 2021 article, something that caught my eyes was the red text in the side-column. Is that suppose to happen or...? Should some Users be editing the articles that are in red? I'm confused. — Jack Reynolds(talk to me!)_{Happy New Year! and Goodbye 2020!} 02:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Yes, someone should be editing those articles once the world provides some content worth documenting. For example, I'm sure 2021 in poetry will appear as soon as the bards have had time to write some notable poems. Certes (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It just means that the article is not created yet. Alexysun (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both—@Alexysun and Certes:—for clarifying my concern! I will try to help you guys able to complete this article! Thanks, again! — Jack Reynolds(talk to me!)_{Happy New Year! and Goodbye 2020!} 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Catalan regional election

The elections to the catalan parliament Will be celebrarem in the 14th of February Poleto75 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

They're a domestic event for 2021 in Spain. Jim Michael (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed removals

I don't see either Michael McKevitt or Paul Westphal as internationally notable enough to merit inclusion in the list of Deaths. This needs to be kept to a manageable size to enable readers to view it properly. Deb (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how notable a terrorist group needs to be for its founder to be in the Deaths section.

Remove Westphal because he doesn't appear to have any international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The number of people killed by the Real IRA is, I think, disproportionate to its significance as an organisation. Deb (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Tommy Lasorda seems to have very limited international notability, although one or two contributors have been persistently adding him to all list articles. Deb (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

He won an Olympic gold medal, in addition to all he accomplished in MLB. That's international notability.

Yes, Olympic gold medal winners should always be included. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't even know baseball had ever been in the Olympics! :-) Deb (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have strong reservations about including Lasorda, who firstly *is* somebody who had limited international notability as Deb said. But as for the gold medal, Lasorda himself didn't personally win it; it was awarded to the American baseball team which he managed. From what I can gather, it was awarded to the team collectively rather than any one individual. I would still be in favour of Lasorda's removal. I also have slight reservations about Hank Aaron's inclusion, albeit to a much lesser extent. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Aaron doesn't appear to have any international notability. He has articles in a large number of languages, but that can be attributed to interest by baseball fans in various countries. Jim Michael (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think he should stay. Matt Campbell (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And he has 39-40 languages. Matt Campbell (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Does he have international notability, rather than merely having had fans in many countries? Jim Michael (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking me?Matt Campbell (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, or anyone else who knows. Like most readers of WP, I hadn't heard of him until I found out that he'd died. I can see that his career made him important in his sport & he's rightfully listed on 2021 in the United States, but does he have any international notability? I find it bizarre that an octogenarian who died naturally over 44 y after retiring has a blurb on ITN, but to be listed on here requires international notability, such as winning an important international event. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

International notability doesn't mean that at all, it means that they were known internationally. If someone passes away and we only find obituaries in their home country, that suggests they don't have it. If we find prominent obituaries in a dozen countries around the world, that suggests that they do, regardless of whether their actual achievements were limited to their home country. And really - very, very few people get a full story in ITN when they pass away. Indeed, his was the lead image on our Main Page until a few hours ago [2]. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

By that definition, many people who have no international notability could be added because they have fans in other countries. For sportspeople & entertainers, the list would be huge. A sport, film or TV series being shown on TV internationally will often gain fans outside their countries for their participants. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Surely though, if someone is "popular" in a particular country (or even just well-known - there are internationally famous criminals, for example), they are by definition notable (not in the Wiki sense) to the people in that country? A musician that sells lots of records, or a novelist that sells lots of books, for example. I find that a good metric is obituaries in good-quality sources from multiple countries, that aren't just reprints of an AP or Reuters newsfeed, for example. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Just seen this discussion after looking through the page history, seeing who added that outright ridiculous tag. Aaron has a Britannica - the high standard of encyclopedias and this list having a stricter criteria than the Britannica is a joke, Aaron as per the Britannica is PERMANENTLY in the history of the gold standard of English language encyclopedias that historians will always use as a reference point - is being listed in the 2021 wiki page really such a leap after that? There should be a established rule - Britannica listings mean automatic entry - to stop this ridiculousness. To be one of the few blurbs and (only one out of these listed figures) and not qualify is laughable. To add to, Colin Bell [3] - automatically presumed notable gets less international attention than Aaron [4], despite the obvious advantage to Bell - Aaron's article got more attention in European languages too (and dominated in Asia). Added with historical notability as a civil rights figure - one begs to wonder why the white guy is automatically presumed more notable (even better, Colin Bell despite being British does not have a Britannica). Not every American sports figure is unimportant - i say this as a Australian. There's many in the Britannica and we should never be more restrictive than them for a lesser page like this one. GuzzyG (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Race & nationality shouldn't come into it. No-one appears to be assumed to be internationally notable.

If Aaron's civil rights activism were international, that would justify his inclusion on this article.

Bell scored goals playing for England. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet, scoring goals for England never seems to help people care to look up Bell, more people internationally look up the "regional" baseball player. One begs to wonder why a player whose "international" goals against Wales, Scotland, West Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and Brazil matter any less than baseballs popularity as the most popular sport in Japan and Venezuela, or it's popularity in Cuba, Mexico and the Dominican Republic or are countries like Wales and Scotland more important in a international sense? (and other Euro countries mainly) the bigger deciding factor of a "international" nobility compared to Japan or Mexico or Venezuela per se because that's three continents? Because the pageviews for Colin Bell are pathetic internationally if so. Your method puts Shane Heams ahead of Aaron because he won a Olympic gold (of which noone actually cares about). This ridiculous method results in complete historical nobodies like Eusébio Scheid, Kathleen Heddle and Jean-Pierre Bacri who will never amount to anything in a historical sense, be seen as a better global representative than people who are legitmately top rank in their field (and Americas primary cultural contributions are nearly always mentioned to be Baseball/Jazz), to think people like Tanya Roberts are more automatically notable because they participated in acting, a international thing - when she holds no claim to any importance in it as a field rather than the legitimate pioneer of a more local thing is ridiculous - as long as baseball is prominent in America (arguably its most mythologized sport along with stuff like Sabermetrics being a practical re-occuring analysis of stats) Aaron will always be of top rank importance. Tanya Roberts being a character actor means nothing and holds no strict importance to global/American culture. This list is just a hodgepodge of people who are largely nobodies with no strict historical importance - them just participating in a field with lots of participants in a global sense (but noone cares about the figures). A better representative of global culture is to show off people who are actually popular in their countries primary culture influences. It shows the pointless endeavor of trying to appeal to a so-called global culture. Fado is a highly regional music genre and yet it's good we list Carlos do Carmo as it's a better example of Portugal's culture rather than a character actor who appeared in a couple of roles - the same goes that Carmo isn't more important than Amália Rodrigues just because he participated in a international competition (Eurovision) either. It's a rather tabloid and ridiculous view of history to think that brief appearances in international competitions, average titleholders, international goals against wales or in friendlies mean anything in history or retain long term interest in comparison to heavy regional importance. GuzzyG (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Our standard for inclusion on the main year articles such as this one isn't popularity, it's international notability. Had Aaron played professionally in &/or against other countries he'd be internationally notable. Some sports have far more fans than others & we have far more readers in some countries than others. An Olympic gold medal proves significant international notability, but if they were won in a sport that isn't popular, their articles are unlikely to have a high number of readers. A successful/popular sportsperson who never played in or against countries other than his/her own is likely to have a high number of readers if they're from a country that has many WP readers & their sport has millions of fans.

Merely competing in Eurovision doesn't gain significant international notability, but winning it does. Jim Michael (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• My problem with having a absolute rule that Britannica automatically = inclusion is that, inevitably, people will use the corollary to say that non-inclusion on Britannica is a reason for removing someone. As you can see from Talk:2020/Archive_2#Firm_proposal, there are some quite bizarre gaps from Britannica. However, in this case, Aarons is very obviously notable for this list. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's bizarre that many important figures are absent from Britannica; I agree we can't use them as a guide of importance. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but in cases that are so slam dunk being questioned, one begs to wonder if something is needed, unless this list aims to be one of character actors and cardinals of no actual importance, compared to someone who will be around as long as their field is. GuzzyG (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I must admit that I had actually heard of Hank Aaron, and bearing in mind that I have no interest whatsoever in baseball, that's saying something. I could probably list the baseball players I've heard of on the fingers of one hand. As for Colin Bell, yes, he was well-known in the UK at the time he was playing, but he'd have been lucky to be named in the UK's top ten footballers even at the time. The fact is, the UK has thousands of professional footballers, dozens of whom have played for England or one of the other home countries. I believe they should be household names in order to be included here. Colin Bell is borderline. Deb (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we all reach a consensus around Michael McKevitt please? I'm sick of reverting his edits on here. I want to get to the bottom of this. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• McKevitt is borderline IMO, the RIRA are clearly a notable terrorist organisation and he was one of only two founders (the other being his wife). I would lean towards inclusion but I'm not going to be too bothered if he isn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Was his wife also founding member as well? Didn't know that. Also, he was quite high up in the Provisional IRA. Clearly notable to me. The Optimistic One (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

People who are "high up in the Provisional IRA" very rarely admit to it. How do you identify who is "high up" and who isn't? His name is not well known outside Ireland, or perhaps even inside it. Deb (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That was obviously the case whilst the PIRA were a proscribed terrorist organisation, but since the GFA a lot of books and other sources have been written about the group. McKevitt was IRA Quartermaster General for over 10 years. (Incidentally, I can assure you that his name is very well known - notoriously so - in both Northern Ireland [5] and Ireland [6]). Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tommy Lasorda is internationally important

Moving this to a new section for the benefit of the disruptive editing of @Thescrubbythug:.

Lasorda is internationally known. ESPN's Australian website announced his passing as an example. See here. The UK also reported it. See here. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:7D39:997E:B26D:A1E0 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional international note - he received the Order of the Rising Sun in Japan in 2008. Add another country to the list who knew of him. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And the Japanese source I added here 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't initially intend to respond, but because this unregistered user has not stopped reverting the importance tag on Lasoda and as of late has been sending me messages on *my* talk page harassing me to "leave it", I feel compelled to speak up. I actually had already fully written this up but lost it when I tried to submit it because this user edited before I sent it through, deleting his contribution which I had been responding to, and starting this section. I don't think Lasoda is notable enough for inclusion for this page, and I don't think he is for the reasons initially outlined by Deb and Jim Michael. The Australian source you use for example is from a website dedicated to international sports, and is not a mainstream source - it would be like for example me using an [Ultimate Classic Rock] source to justify the inclusion of an obscure (by mainstream standards) backing musician. While it is true that Lasoda did receive the Japanese order, it is also well-established that baseball is a major sport in Japan, as it is in the United States (and few other countries). The fact of the matter is, in the grand scheme of things Lasoda was not a historically significant figure in his field of sport (which itself is not very widely played internationally) like Hank Aaron was, nor was he a household name even in the United States or Japan. The inclusion of figures like Lasoda would in my view set a precedent where sports figures with little international significance for fields of sports which aren't widely played internationally would automatically be included. That's my view on the inclusion of Lasoda, and as of now there has been no consensus in favour of Lasoda's inclusion - hence the importance tag. You (and you alone) have constantly been reverting edits and removing the importance tag despite the fact that there is no consensus in favour of Lasoda's unequivocal inclusion. I should also note that this is an unregistered, first time user who has not edited before. Your edits so far have been disruptive, aggressive, and characterised by a refusal to accept the basic protocol of waiting for a consensus before making such edits. You've already given your two cents, now leave it and Stop sending me personal messages on my Talk page confronting me over this, and stop editing the Lasoda entry until other users have contributed and a consensus has been reached. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Highly disruptive reply totally ignoring ESPN's worldwide presence and therefore absolutely a mainstream source well beyond the irrelevant example you gave. Clear bias against Lasorda here for unknown reasons totally ignoring the Daily Mail and Nikkei sources that demonstrate knowledge of Lasorda from outside the United States. The claim that he was not well known even within the US is insulting. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ESPN may be international, but it *is* America-based, and is specifically a niche news source. Two international news sources (one of which is from a country where as stated, baseball is a major sport) does not equate widespread notability - nor does it suggest that Lasoda was at all a household name outside of baseball fan circles. The only disruptive edits over this issue has been from yourself, and I have accordingly reported you over your behaviour. My advice to you is the same as what I said from the beginning: Back off and wait for other users to give their two cents so that a consensus (that isn't one-man) is reached without the Talk page being spammed by you. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ESPN has an office in Sydney so no your argument doesn't wash. And it is NOT a niche news source unless you are calling all sport a "niche". That's insulting to sport and to all sports sources. All this requires is international coverage in any country (multiple and I have given three) and it qualifies as worthy of inclusion. Oh and you removing this section entirely wasn't disruptive as well as removing sources from an article page? What goes around comes around, especially here!. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The removal of this section was an accident on my part which was a result of me attempting to post my original comment in response to your Lasoda comments on the original thread, but was unable to be posted because in the intervening period you deleted said contribution and started this new section. ESPN has a Sydney office but they still originate from, and are based in America - and it *is* niche because it deals with just sports and is only used by people interested in sports. I'm not going to dignify the rest (or any subsequent response of yours that you will almost certainly post) with any further responses. I've given my two cents, and you have yours - but it doesn't matter what I say at the end because you're still going to continue with your disruptive behaviour and you're not going to wait a reasonable time for other users to respond before once again moving to remove the importance tag. Do your own thread a favour and back off so that others are given a chance to respond. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Your clear bad faith here has me not believing your claim about the deletion. ESPN have had original Australian content by the way so again your argument fails. ESPN Australia backs that up. And again you insult sport calling it "niche". All you are doing is showing in blazing lights that you have a personal issue with Lasorda's inclusion. Do yourself a favour and leave it be because it is you who is being disruptive. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment:' Whilst I don't agree that Lasorda is internationally notable - most baseball players are little known outside the US - he did win a gold medal (albeit a team medal) at the Olympics. Since only eight countries participated in that competition, I don't consider this such a remarkable achievement, but one might argue that the number of baseball players in the US is so huge that he was notable merely for making the team. The consensus in the previous discussion seemed to be to include him, and I have no choice but to go along with that. God knows what will happen if we start including everyone who ever won a team gold medal in the Year articles, but that's another discussion. Deb (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Just in case anyone else is wondering I have found more sources from outside the United States showing coverage and backing his international standing. Two from Canada here and here, another from Japan here and would you believe one from Turkey here. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

• January 6–7
  • 2020–2021 United States election protests – Four people die and at least 14 police officers are injured after supporters of President Donald Trump overrun the U.S. Capitol Building, forcing Congress to evacuate. At least 52 people are arrested. Congress later reconvenes and formally certifies Joe Biden as the next President of the United States in the early morning hours of January 7. Trump's social media accounts are blocked by Twitter and Facebook after tweeting to supporters who attacked the Capitol. Facebook later banned Trump from all platforms indefinitely (including Instagram), at least until Trump's presidential term ends.
  • During the Electoral College count, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Paul Gosar object to the state of Arizona's results, the first time a vote is forced to accept or reject the objection since 2004, when Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer objected to George W. Bush's victory in Ohio against John Kerry. President Trump has promised an "orderly transition" of power to Joe Biden.
• January 7 – Elon Musk becomes the world's richest person, with a net worth exceeding $185bn, ahead of Jeff Bezos. 2A02:C7F:D2B8:9D00:1821:B3DF:C53D:563B (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The first is a domestic event for 2021 in the United States. International media coverage & criticism doesn't make it an international event. It has no effect on the rest of the world.

I don't see why we should include a change of world's richest person. Jim Michael (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Seagull123 Φ 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

• January 11 – The United States re-lists Cuba as State Sponsors of Terrorism. President Obama removed Cuba from the list in 2015. 2A02:C7F:D2B8:9D00:6017:BDAD:57B7:ACD2 (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Seagull123 Φ 22:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice

I’m removing the ‘additional citations template’ since this article has good citations now. If you think this is wrong, please re-add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsi20 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Date format

Not to nitpick or anything, but one thing I've noticed about these yearly pages is the date format - specifically using "month, day, year" (January 1) for dates of events and deaths. Given that the overwhelming majority of countries, including in the English-speaking world, uses "day, month, year" (1 January), shouldn't the yearly pages such as this one reflect that and the "month, day, year" format be confined to those countries that use it in their respective year in topics? Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

‎Clarification request for VP and President inauguration

Given that the VP sworn in is the first Asian, Black and the first woman in US history, won't it be fitting to place Harris in addition to Biden in the inauguration? Awaiting for opinions. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because international notability is the bar for inclusion here. 2021 in the United States is the place for including that. Jim Michael (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, have followed up. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year

This year Chinese New Year will be widely celebrated on 12th February.

"The Chinese year will start on Feb 12 2021 and end on Feb 1 2022, when the Year of the Tiger begins."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/chinese-new-year-2021-ox-luck-should-avoid-medicine-laundry

In Vietnam and Mongolia the festival is celebrated on different days (the day before and the day after, respectively).

"When Is Chinese New Year 2021?"

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/common/chinese-new-year

YEAR OF THE METAL OX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ox_in_Chinese_mythology

There are already pages on Wikipedia for the Five Phases and the Twelve Earthly Branches.

FIVE PHASES

Wood | Fire | Earth | Metal | Water

TWELVE EARTHLY BRANCHES

Rat | Ox | Tiger | Rabbit | Dragon | Snake | Horse | Goat | Monkey | Rooster | Dog | Pig

Bearing in mind the significance of the Chinese POV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users) would my fellow Wikipedians agree with me that there is good enough reason to have a separate page for each year in the sexagenary cycle? Dbug002 (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)