Talk:2020s

Bad image choice in collage

We're only 2 years into the 2020s - 4 images is way too many to have in the collage already. Also, the images in the collage should generally only include events that span multiple years of the decade. COVID and Ukraine are good image choices. I think Afghanistan withdrawal and the George Floyd Protests should be removed, as they were single events that were no longer than a few months each. In the future, the mix of images should generally include some positive events and technological innovations too like past collages - the current mix is all "negative" events, which is an incorrect representation of reality. comment added by 2604:3d08:3686:9800:e58d:b3ce:a909:1c73 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

1. That collage is customizable, pictures can be added and/or removed easily without having to make a new image in Commons. that means you can easily add big events easily from the decade as they happen.

2. you need a consensus first before removal and there's only one person saying removal, which is you, a random IP address, and we don't always trust random IP address as you can make a proxy to make it look like you're from a different location,

and 3. a customizable collage ain't that big of a deal, I will switch one of the images of the collage to show my point. 4me689 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

here's my reasonings why the 2020's should get a collage early

1. the decade has so far been very dramatic with so many big events happening so far

2. it would make the article more unique

and 3. and it will make the article look nicer.

and now I wonder what @Jim Michael 2:, @Wjfox2005:, @TheScrubby:, and @InvadingInvader: think about this, there the main contributors of the main year artices. I also wonder what @KoopaDaQuick: think about this. 4me689 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards it being a good idea, but we'd have to keep it very limited (like 1 per year). I'd support it if others support it.

2020 would obviously be COVID, and 2022 would obviously be Ukraine (both would need their own talk page discussions to pick which photo would be the one on the collage), but 2021 is the big question. Unlike 2020 and 2022, there wasn't one single defining event already covered. My personal preference right now is is the January 6 US Capitol attack (or insurrection or whatever you want to call it), but we could also do Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, or maybe even James Webb? Folding phones is just a bad idea anyways; there is stuff much more notable than that. Plus, Huawei and Samsung announced and publicly demonstrated folding phones before the pandemic. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

COVID vaccines and NFTs are two more 2021-specific things I say could work. Both are very controversial subjects, though, so idk KoopaDaQuick (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm iffy on NFTs. They rose quickly but fell quickly too. I think some sort of 2021 coup or coup attempt, like Myanmar or J6, would be better. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with foldable smartphones being in the collage. While it would be nice to have something to represent technological advancement, they're not something that have caught on amongst the people I know, and even if they do they haven't really changed anything on a societal level. If we want to represent technological advancement in this decade I think it should be the rapid development of COVID vaccines. I don't think there's much point creating a collage so early into the decade. Other than COVID and the invasion of Ukraine it's hard to say what the most significant events will be. --82.38.192.41 (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

the foldable phones are more of a placeholder until something bigger happens, the collages meant to make it look better and make it look like more of a decade page. 4me689 (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, if the decade isn't over yet (not to mention barely even a quarter way through) then we shouldn't even have a collage. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. As of right now its 2022 and almost 2023. We are not even halfway, even a quarter way through the decade yet and theres a collage. I get that the images can be replaced whenever, but we should at least wait unil 2025-2026, when the decade starts to seep in to add images. Leaf8613 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that Covid-19, Ukraine and JJST are (for now) representative of the decade. Covid is likely to linger a little more, so is Ukraine, and JJST will likely give us some more interesting images for years to come. But I also agree that for now the other 2 images can stay as placeholders until something bigger happens, it doesn't hurt to keep them until then. (Perhaps one of them could be replaced with the change of royalty in the UK, but that could also be considered a short event.) Dhrm77 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

What's JJST? Are you talking about the James Webb telescope (JWST)? InvadingInvader (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I am again expressing my feelings about the fact that we should not have an entire image collage for the decade at 2022 not even 2023 then. If you really want it up, the only things that deserve to be up their are Covid 19 and Ukraine. The rest are not worth defening an entire decade when we have 8 years left of it. Leaf8613 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from, but the 2020s are among the craziest decades in human history so far. At 2012 or 2013, I would have sided with you, but given a pandemic, an invasion in Europe, multiple coups, and a coup attempt in the world's most powerful country, as well as quite a few notable assassinations so far, we should probably get a collage in with at least a few of these events. We can always change it later if China invades Taiwan or something else big happens...actually it makes me wonder if anything bigger than COVID or Ukraine other than Taiwan will even happen ;) InvadingInvader (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it is way too early to have an image collage on this article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, as some events will clearly continue to be among the most important of the decade - especially the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russo-Ukrainian War & the end of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

collage images

this talk section is a section to talk about collage images, have any feedback. 4me689 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am personally not in favour of a collage, but if we need to have one, we should only include events that are at least likely to be considered memorable over a 10 years span. The death of Elizabeth II is a highly mediatised event that is going to have very little historical impact, also considering that UK is no longer the great power it used to be. The images on technological developments are also meh, but it is difficult to include this section of the collage so early in the decade. I would suggest to limit the number of images in the collage to what is really important: Covid-19 and Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fall of Kabul is sadly already forgotten 1 year later, but I guess it could stay there for the time being. Dadoso90 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And when you think it cannot get any worse, a picture about short-term US protests from 2 years ago pop ups... We should rename the collage: highights of the decade, according to US and UK users :D Dadoso90 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Collage should be removed, it's way too early. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We should remove the collage. It is way to early to think about summarizing the decade. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 23:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: and @Basil the Bat Lord: the 2020s ain't your normal decade, it's one of the most dramatic decades in human history. we have the biggest pandemic in 100 years, Europe's most deadliest war since WWII, one of the most important deaths in the 21st century, we have an attempted coup on the world's most powerful country, we have the end to the biggest war in the 21st century, not to mention other big coups, as well as a couple big assassination attempts. all these events could have been the biggest event in their decade if all said events did not take place in the 2020s. in my opinion collages of the best way to put pictures in the articles. @InvadingInvader: summed it up good in the last discussion. not trying to start an edit War. 4me689 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that when you take any period of 10 years, you'll always find some crazy shit. Perhaps this time is crazier than usual, but it's hard to tell and determining that is extremely subjective.

I might be willing to have pictures if we leave it to the very most significant events. COVID is the biggest thing of the decade, that's fine to include. Wars are tricky, but including something about the Russian invasion of Ukraine might be acceptable, especially now that Russia is mobilizing and threatening using nukes. I'm unsure about the end of the War in Afghanistan, since it hasn't made any large worldwide impacts. Apart from if a future Franz Ferdinand situation happens, I think deaths should be off-limits, including Queen Elizabeth. It's sad she died, but the effect of her death on the world is low. James Webb could maybe be on there, but, again, I'm unsure if it has made the kinds of impacts needed to include it in a decade collage. BLM is big, but I would raise the question of if we are being too US-centric for including a primarily US social movement.

The big problem with developing a 2020s collage right now isn't that big events haven't happened yet, it's that it's simply too early to determine and weigh their impacts. And because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, I think it is better to not have a collage for now. (If we do keep a collage, can we please get some better images? These ones are bad.) ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 02:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@4me689: The perceived "craziness" of the decade is totally irrelevant to the issue. We're only two years into a ten year decade. It's just too early to be putting collages up on the published article. Speculating? Sure. But not publishing it. We have no idea what will or won't happen in the next 8 years. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Uncertainly, since this decade isn't finished yet and most of the events are from the early 2020s that can define a year rather than a decade, it is very unlikely that those images of collage are going to make it to the decade unless there is a agreement to this discussion. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Any way we can resize the middle image in the top row of the collage (the George Floyd protests one) to make it fit better? I definitely think its inclusion has merit (it's the largest global protest movement of the decade so far, by far), I just think all the photos should be the same size, or extremely close to the same size, for the lead montage. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you verify that Black Lives Matter (specifically the George Floyd protests) was the largest global protest movement of the 2020s in the world? I would think that isn't such an easy assumption, given the size of other protest movements so far this decade. One that comes to mind is the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, with the general strike in November 2020 having possibly up to 250 million people participate (although that figure is dubious). How about the protests right now in Iran? Remember that this is a worldwide encyclopedia. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I was more referring to the scale of protests worldwide connected to the death of George Floyd, not so much the specific number of people who protested. See this article and notice the number of other countries around the world where protests were held: List of George Floyd protests outside the United States. In contrast, the Indian farmers' protests took place only in India, "With minor small scale protests seen in countries such as US, UK, Canada and New Zealand", while the George Floyd protests "took place in over 60 countries and on all seven continents". That all being said, the protests you mention above should absolutely be added to the lead text for their obvious relevance and notability (which I just did). Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not only a matter of scale. The pictures in the collage should represent pivotal moments in contemporary history. Any major protests in the US obviously have global outreach. As such, they generate similar movements all over the world, even though most of them are pale imitations that wither in a matter of weeks or months. Other US movements such as Occupy or MeToo had similar global outreach (NB: none of them was included in previous collages, and rightly so).

The question is not how many people attended these protests or their global recognition, but whether these protests are a pivotal point in the history of the decade. Covid-19 and Russia-Ukraine war are arguably the most important pivotal moments so far, while the fall of Kabul was pivotal for the region, and also in the US domestic debate, but it's broader importance still has to be determined.

Race discrimination has been a prominent feature of the US political debate for many decades, so anti-racism protests could technically be included in most collages. However, while the 1960s were definitely a pivotal point in this regard, I am not sure we can really say the same regarding the most recent developments.

Obviously, the death of Queen Elizabeth does not belong here either. The emotion around her passing has not managed the rescue the Tories, let alone have any global impact, apart from tabloidish hype. Also, there is a long established policy of avoding collage references to specific individuals unless it's really necessary.

NB: the final collage will have about 8 pictures. If 2-3 of them are dedicated to scientific, technological or socio-economic developments, we are left with 5-6 pictures for major events. Covid-19 and Ukraine-Russia are likely to take 2 of these spots, so we are left with 3-4 spots for events occurring in the next 7 years.... Dadoso90 (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

COVID, Afghanistan & Ukraine should stay long-term. BLM/Floyd, Elizabeth II, the January 6 attack & the Indian protests aren't important enough. The Iranian protests aren't important enough yet. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Dadoso90 - The people pressing hardest for a collage are its creators. Deb (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how the death of Queen Elizabeth II, would not be considered important enough to be included. I would argue other than COVID 19, her death has been one of the most seismic events of this decade. Most of the world's population was born during her reign and her impact on 70 years of world history was enormous. I think this also demonstrated by the fact the pretty much every world leader with a few exceptions attended her funeral and her funeral has been reported to be the most watched television event ever in history. Just because Britain is no longer an Empire does not demonstrate that the Queen's influence and popularity was diminished. Jjfun3695 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that QE2 is probably the most significant death in a few decades, likely since the death of Pope John Paul II. We don't have the pope's death in the lead of the 2000s article. Both figures died natural deaths (ie weren't assassinated) and largely expected given their age. Article leads for decades should be reserved for major developments in politics, war, technology, science or cover major disasters and tragedies ie earthquakes and assassinations, etc. PaulRKil (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Criteria for Assassinations

Can we get some consensus on Assassinations and Attempts? The section was a mess with many non-notable individuals and a lack of sources.

I think we leave this primarily to assassinations and attempts that have their own articles and were committed against global figures or state sanctioned killings against an otherwise notable individual. There is no reason an ugandan general whose biographical article is a stub or a drunk guy picking a fight against a New York gubernatorial candidate should be included. This also includes Brett Kavanaugh whose attempt has no article about it and his assailant never opened fire on him, instead opting to turn himself in to police after arriving at his neighborhood. We don't have Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the Democratic members of congress included for the January 6 attack even though some participants had explicit plans to target these people, so why would we include events and individuals far less notable than that? PaulRKil (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sport

The sport section is very biased towards western sports such as baseball and soccer. If this weren't bad enough, there's very little context in the entries. For example, any reader who doesn't know that the Premier League is limited to England would think it was of worldwide significance. I'm sure we can do better. Deb (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I do largely agree but one of the unavoidable issues is that the most popular and most widely played sports in the world largely originated in the west. If I am taking the world atlas' list of most popular sports at face value, the first four are Association Football, Cricket, Hockey, and Tennis. All of these originated in the west as do the rest of the entries in the article.

I think results of championship games from continental governing bodies are okay regardless of the sport. Aside from obvious inclusions like world cup results, results from any of the championship games of the six FIFA confederations and any of the International Cricket Council league games are appropriate.

I know there will be debate on this, but I think results from the championship games for the MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL should be included. Even though these leagues mainly consist of teams based in the US and Canada, I still think they are significant to add as each respective league has major viewership around the world. For example the MLB is widely followed in Japan as well as in the Caribbean, the NBA in China, and the NHL in Northern Europe and Russia. Additionally, these four leagues are far larger and more influential than what is considered the global governing bodies of each sport.

But I agree with your second point, we should avoid smaller leagues like the Premier League in the UK and any of the NCAA college games in the USA. PaulRKil (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Death of Elizabeth II

Should the death of Elizabeth II, be considered a significant event of the 2020s? There seems to be some disagreement about this. I believe it should given the Queen's popularity and her reign marking the second Elizabethan era in which most of the world's living population was born into and has lived through. I'm not sure why some don't consider her death significant enough to mention as a highlighting event of the 2020s. Jjfun3695 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No significant political or socio-economic changes occurred as a result of her death. As I stated, the house of Windsor still rule and no constituent realms have changed or announced their intent to become a republic after her death. Had these events happened, I’d support the inclusion in the lead. In regards to length of reign and how many people lived through her reign, the same things could be said regarding King Bhumibol who ruled longer than Elizabeth or Pope John Paul II whose death and funeral was probably similar in size. We don’t include them in the leads for their decades, nor should we with Elizabeth. PaulRKil (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that the King of Thailand was hardly known, the Queen was known everywhere. I also think John Paul II should have a lead in the 2000s page given that his death was just as seismic of an event. Jjfun3695 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The King of Thailand was far from hardly known and dominated culture in Asia. Had the death of John Paul II lead to another schism or the end of the Vatican, it'd be notable, but again while these figures are important and their deaths were widely covered, there was nothin seismic that occured as a result of their deaths. It'd be more appropriate to include the demise of the institution itself, not a person who temporarily holds it dying naturally, no matter how large a figure. PaulRKil (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to explain how the King of Thailand dominated culture in Asia. That's a pretty big claim. Asia is a very big place. Elizabeth was head of the Commonwealth of Nations, comprising 2.5 billon people, for 70 years. That's pretty significant. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I will concede that maybe saying "dominated culture in Asia" was a bit too far, but Bhumibol still ruled for a similar amount of time as Elizabeth and was involved in some crucial historical events that effect Thailand and its surrounding neighbors. Leading the Commonwealth of Nations is not that significant. It is an association of sovereign countries, she didn't directly rule over them. There are similar and far more important organizations that we don't have single leads for when they die such as, again, the papacy, the secretary general of the united nations, or the president of the european commission.

I'm willing to put in a sentence in the lead that says "Many prominent world leaders died in the 2020s, such as XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, and Elizabeth II, the latter of who ruled for seventy years." Take a look at the lead for 2022 for an example of what I am talking about. I think we need to avoid wording like "this is an end of an era" or similar grandiose statements that put undue weight on a western institution like the british monarchy. PaulRKil (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has proposed saying "this is an end of an era" or similar grandiose statements. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The original entry in the lead read as follows “The 2020s were also seen as a time of seismic change in eras, when Queen Elizabeth II died at age 96 on 8 September 2022 after reigning for 70 years.” which I think put way too much weight on a figurehead leader of an office with no real power dying, and whose death did not end with any major political changes. It would have been “seismic” if Canada, Australia, and New Zealand decided they’d become independent republics or the monarchy itself was dissolved, but this did not happen. PaulRKil (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, and it doesn't make sense to me, a lot of monarchists virtually worshipped Elizabeth. I was on an American cruise ship when she died, and saw the close to saturation coverage even the American news networks gave to her death and funeral preparations. You and I might agree that she was "a figurehead leader of an office with no real power", but a lot of other people saw it differently. No country was going to become an independent republic instantly upon her death. That's a silly measure. But as an Australian, I can assure you that those seeking a republic have become a lot louder and more active since she died. Australia now has a government minister with the explicit role of moving Australia towards a republic and he has been in the news a lot more in the past month. There are parallel but less loud rumblings in Canada and NZ. If Australia does become a republic in five years time (the shortest realistic timeframe), Elizabeth's death will definitely have contributed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Look, I am sure that the event is significant and could perhaps feature in a collage of a decade that is not particularly eventful, but as I said earlier, with Covid-19 and Ukraine, there are only 3-4 spots max for any other events, and it's not even 2023 yet. We just don't see this event as a "must have" as it lacks the deeper social, economic and political impact that events such as Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine had. People feel strongly about the monarchy, but also feel strongly about major sport events, tv shows and so forth. They all get extensive media coverage, but are unlikely to feature high in history books. Dadoso90 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Be wary of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, if those things happen, the Queen's death will have contributed. If and when that comes to pass, we can re-evaluate the significance of her passing and add it to this article. As it stands currently, her death has had no major effects on society at large, certainly not compared to COVID or the invasion of Ukraine. Her name certainly belongs in a list of significant deaths of the year/decade, but events? Not so much. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

“The 2020s were also seen as a time of seismic change in eras, when Queen Elizabeth II died at age 96 on 8 September 2022 after reigning for 70 years.”

To be fair, what does a seismic change mean? I want to know that. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why this edit got reverted?

“With all the above misfortunes, 2020's can be seen as the most challenging decade since the 1960s which saw Cuban Missile Crisis and various Cold War related incidents. Because of this, it made many of these smiley faces, emoticons, users, and emojis very angry and enraged to this timeline.”

For some reason, I inserted another type of material in this article. But within few seconds, it got reverted, I think this should be added to the article and page. I also even did linking on those words to pages. Can you please all explain why it is reverted? Please elaborate, you know. 2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62 (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be opinion, or original research, and at least partially a joke, none of which are appropriate for a Wikipedia article. If there is a reliable source calling the 2020s "the most challenging decade since the 1960s", then it can be reinstated with a citation. Otherwise it doesn't belong. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wpscatter Can you try to elaborate more on the second sentence I added to the article?

That is called “Because of this, it made many of these smiley faces, emoticons, users, and emojis very angry and enraged to this timeline.” — 2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Because it doesn't make sense and doesn't strengthen the lede of this article. PaulRKil (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

How doesn’t it make sense? It fits to an article. And there might be a citation for a source. —2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

"there might be a citation for a source" - okay, then find one and cite it. Unsourced material does not belong on Wikipedia. We do not add unsourced info in the hope of citing it later. WPscatter ^t/_c 16:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Because it makes zero sense to attach emotions to inanimate objects such as emojis and to refer to this decade as "this timeline". No reasonable person would have any idea what point it was trying to make. PaulRKil (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I can understand that. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree that two photos should be in pop culture section?

I added the two photos to the popular culture, and here is a link to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020s&diff=prev&oldid=1120552115

Do you think that both photos should be added to the popular culture section? If not, why and how? -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because there is no mention in the article of shopping malls or Clubhouse, and you did not cite a source. If you find a reliable, independent source citing the claims you made, then they can be added. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wpscatter But there are other photos in the pop culture section without citations sourced. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)