Talk:2020

Baseball Hall of Fame reference

All of the players mentioned (before my edit) are eligible now. That reference made absolutely no sense whatsoever. WALRUS

April 24 [ 2020] Hall Of Fame Names: Marvin Benard Barry Bonds Bobby Estalella Jason Giambi

100th NFL Football Season

Should this be put in, barring unforseen circumstances?

I don't see why not, it's very unlikely the NFL will shut down before then. Grandmasterka 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

24 April 2020. NFL has Renewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaiziMuddassir (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction with another article

When I read this, theare was a contradiction with the Voyager 2 article. The article says that Voyager 2 is expected to end transmissions in 2030, wheras here it says 2020, can someone verify this?

According to JPL, "The mission objective of the VIM is to obtain useful interplanetary, and possibly interstellar, fields, particles, and waves (FPW) science data until year 2020 and beyond when the spacecraft's ability to generate adequate electrical power for continued science instrument operation will come to an end." So it is expected that the probe will end transmissions in the 2020s. IvansWorld (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

References

24 April 2020 Mission is Scheduled.

Template?

Is there a template for future-year articles? I just made a change in the article's structure because I didn't find anything about templates, so I decided to proceed, but just in case, I'm asking. --maf 12:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 24 April 2020 The Reference Date is 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaiziMuddassir (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden's Prophecy/Prediction/Expectation

I was watching a television show about Al-Qaeda on SBS Australia television last week, and on the show they said that Osama Bin Laden has given a date, that he expects that the ruler of the free world (the United States of America) will be under Islamic caphite. The show was origionally aired in the UK. Should this be added to "Confirmed but unscheduled events" or "Predicted or expected events"? Or not at all? --Brenton.eccles 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to publish predictions of any kind.Michael E Nolan (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

24 April 2020 Yes.

Half-Life 2

Since when is Half-Life 2 set in 2020? The first game says 200X and the second game says nothing at all about the date. Fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.202.49 (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no indication whatsoever of the year in which Half-Life 2 takes place, so I'll remove it from the list. 4RM0 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Assassins Creed?

Um I dont know who put thought the game was set in 2020, but it's set in 2012. 24.29.59.210 (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

End of support

Why is the claimed end of support for an operating system notable? Microsoft has been known to extend the support date, and it's not clear even past end-of-support dates are notable. An RfC at WT:YEARS seems appropriate, but, meanwhile, speculative end-of-support dates should not be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. There's nothing notable about one company's announced date to end support for one product. -- irn (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

24 April 2020 Microsoft is renewed.

Starbucks

Why is Starbucks goal (not proposal) for ending plastic straws notable, significant, or important? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: Someone with a public IP is adamant about keeping it. I've added more equally relevant news about beloved global fast food franchises, since that seems to be accepted here. --Bonusbox (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bonusbox: Who said it was accepted? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

24 April 2020 Depends on the Outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaiziMuddassir (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Marching Bands For The 2020 Macy's Parade

The marching bands selected in the 2020 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Wesley Whatley announcement in April & May 2019. They count backwards from 5. The crowd counting backwards from 5 “5 4 3 2 1 Let’s Have A Parade” and they cheering. Congrats to the marching bands for the 2020 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

• Marching Band, West Virginia
• Marching Band, Mississippi
• Marching Band, Illinois
• Marching Band, Texas
• Roses Parade 2016 Band
• Roses Parade 2017 Band
• Philadelphia Thanksgiving Day Parade 2018 Band
• Macy’s Parade 2006 Band
• Macy’s Parade 2011 Band
• Macy’s Parade 2013 Band — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B423:DE3D:7560:8AA6:D0A:D2EF (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Eclipses

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

Tidy Up

We seem to have a lot of local/domestic events added which I have cleared out and a number of events that are speculation at the most. If you think any of those I have deleted are actually significant on an international stage then please raise it here so we can discuss them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

OK it seems that User:SkiWalks doesnt agree, I propose that the following be deleted as not internationally relevant:

• January 11 Taiwanese general election - a domestic event
• February 2 - Super Bowl LIV - a domestic sport event
• February 16 - Dominican Republic municipal elections - a domestic political event
• March 2 - Yahoo! Time Capsule reopens - already tagged for importance
• April 1 - 2020 United States Census - a domestic event
• May 7 - United Kingdom local elections - a domestic political event
• May 17 - Dominican Republic presedential election - a domestic political event
• November 3 - United States presedential election - a domestic political event
• December 31 - Brexit transition expires - maybe - if it does happen then it is unlikely to be noticed outside of the UK

I propose that most of the Date unknowns are speculation and may bees and also WP:CRYSTAL applies, if they dont have a firm date they are probably not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there seems to be consensus that national elections should be listed. I disagree, but this talk page is not the correct venue to establish a sensible consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

OK I am not sure why but as far as I can see only "January 11 Taiwanese general election" falls into the area. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Local elections should.probably go but definitely not general or presidential electons.  Nixinova  T / C   07:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Nixinova, Arthur Rubin, MilborneOne, I agree that national elections can be listed here, but please also feel free to also add any such items and data to the article 2020 in politics and government. that article obviously has a wide scope for any such electoral items. feel free to add any such data any time. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Many of the items in this post are not of international significance and do not belong here, but presidential and general elections in major countries do. One might argue what makes a "major country," but no one would argue that the United States isn't. The election (or reelection) of the U.S. president has implications that extend all over the world. While I am at it, I object to the question of the importance of the January 1 protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Bagdhad. Given that war between the U.S. and Iran is likely to break out, the incident at the embassy is highly relevant.Michael E Nolan (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Significance of general and presidential elections

What is the significance of the general elections in Taiwan and Guyana and presidential elections in the Dominican Republic and Poland? Do they really deserve a mention here? YantarCoast (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I dont believe they are are of note for a mention here but presumably this was discussed elsewhere by the comments above. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please also feel free to post any such items in 2020 in politics and government. I do feel such items can be included here in this article, 2020, but we have the politics and government articles specifically to provide wider and more extensive coverage for items such as these. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sm8900 thats seem a more reasonable place to list what are domestic elections. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Not beginning of 203rd decade

As you may have read in other similar articles there is an ongoing debade on weather 2020 is the end of the 202 decade or beginign of 2020s decade. I know for arithmentic fact that the 202nd decade ends on 31 dec 2020, but I understand that 2020 is conveniently put in 2020s decade. I propose change (actually just a small adition at the top): "Note that 2020s decade is not the same as 202 decade". Angel.marchev (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel.marchev (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Since there is only one correct anwser arithmentically, but there is a debate on the matter, I propose a simple change: "Note that 2020s decade is not the same as 202 decade". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel.marchev (talk • contribs) 15:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out in Talk:Decade, hardly anyone uses the ordinal decades. Thus we have limited mention of the century controversy in 1999, 2000, and 2001, we probably shouldn't mention the decade controversy here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I linked this article in Talk:Decade, and I thought I should link it here too. It brings up both sides of the argument and in my experience is the most accurate and up to date site online regarding any matter related to how we track the passage of time. aharris206 (talk) 11:58, 01 January 2020 (UTC)

While it is common to speak of "the 1920s" or "the 2020s," it is unusual to refer to the "202nd decade." Such a discussion does not belong on the page.Michael E Nolan (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be the 203rd decade, not the 202nd. It still doesn't belong here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ball drop

Should we add the ball drop to events Classic910 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope --McSly (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

👍 Classic910 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Add website for NASA’s Artemis 1

Should we Classic910 (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Redudent and run on sentence.

There is no need to list the continents when it is already covered by listing The time zone that is covered in 2020. Another thing is its a run on sentence and is not needed.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding International cricket in 2020

Can someone add international cricket in 2020 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_cricket_in_2020" to the "2020 by topic section" - I don't have edit rights, so I cannot make the change myself. TheDataStudent (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 Guyana Presidential Elections to the list of international events

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Guyanese_general_election Kkonic (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability

So just because now you have more editors than ever before with the huge number of users you think every single event is notable? Like the Indonesian flood its strictly a domestic event and nothing major given the high number of deaths similar floods have happened throughout the 2000s but were not noted as they were strictly domestic events not major events with worldwide coverage. Every date of January has been noted. Just compare this article to the 2000 article. Many significant event happened in January 2000, but not all were considered important to the whole world , the month April 2000 had only three events noted down on April 3, 22 and 30, while January 2020 already have every minor events to have happened noted down here, despite the fact April 2000 had way more notable events than January 2020 does so far that were not included in 2000 as not all were important to the whole world to be notable enough. Just look at January 5, 2020, it already has 5 events covered in it. Its more like a day by day news coverage than an wikipedia article noting the "most important events" in a year. What happened to the "recent years policy" ? Dilbaggg (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The "recent years" policy was established only by consensus at WT:YEARS, and was never ratified by the community. I think it was a good idea. To begin with, events within the Persian Gulf Crisis should be trimmed, and probably should have only one date entry, so far. I'd go for the air strike. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The airstrikes at the Ayn al-Asad military base are also notable as well, as it was covered by multiple media sources, so that should be kept too. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 14:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

So yeah January 1, 2,3,4,5, 7,8, 9 all have events under them, not just one but each multiple and such will be the case with all 365 days in the year, and 2020 will be the most eventful year in history, surpassed by 2021, that by 2022 and so on just because new users love adding every single events with the logic "it has modern sources", as though floods worse than the Indonesian flood this year didnt happen in earlier years and didn't kill more (1000s) of people but were not included because internet had fewer users then and most sources were not internet based. For example the 2005 Mummbi flood in India killed 700 + Maharashtra floods of 2005 people but isnt included in the 2005 articles as baby users adding every single events now werent born then. Does that make 2020 more important than earlier years like 2000 and 2010? Nope. January 2002 had only three dates and under them there were only 1 events, does that mean 2002 was less eventful than 2020? August 2002 just had one event noted the whole month, yet so many important things happened [[1]]. In 2010 , the 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes killed over 1000 people but stuffs like these were not included as they were domestic events. There have been worse outbreaks than the Wuhan pneumonia outbreaks in many years but they were not included, and as though outbreaks last a single date January 9.In 1973 the Yom Kippur War happened, but it didnt feel necessary to add every single dates and events of that event as done with the 2020 persian gulf crisis here, maybe because that was before most users here were born? Wikipedia years articles have become a day by day news coverage rather than actual articles and most intellectual editors left and most editors now a days act like school dropouts. What I would consider ideal is build new year articles the same way 2000, 2002, 2010, etc were built, only stating the most significant events with international coverage all over the world. But thats just me. Ah well carry on as you wish to, really nice to see new years becoming more eventful than older ones, only according to Wikipedia that is and its editors (school students), which now includes everything and the year articles since 2018 appear to be a day by day news coverage rather than wikipedia standard articles like 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2010. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You’ve could’ve made this rant without violating WP:CIVIL. Stay on topic, focus on the article, not the editor. ShadowCyclone talk 04:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just hope the quality of the article improves, and 2020 isn't treated as an ultra eventful year full of day by day news coverage and it is written in the same standards as earlier years such as 2002. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Natural Disasters with less that 1000 death toll should not be added as they are domestic events. The Iran Iraq earth quake in 2017 affected two countries so it was an international event and 500 deaths were sufficient. Here people are even adding disasters with less than `100 deaths. Also is it necessary to include every single general elections that happen? And almost every single events in the Persian Gulf Crisis is being added, if such was done in a Vietnam war year like 1969 the page would be added with 10,000+ events of the war alone, thank God its not a "recent year" and only the most significant events of the war were added. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that not every little thing happened in every country should be listed, but still, Wikipedia's meaning is to give information, and as for myself, I'm interested in things happening around the world. I think, that having two different pages for the major events of 2020, and for smaller events of 2020, could be a considerable idea?

I, myself (and I'm not the only one, I know) have made a document for events (smaller ones too) around the world since 2010. And because I don't read every country's media, Wikipedia's "year" -articles are the best source for me. Armaanikaks (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

US regulations

Every year, on January 1, there are significant changes in US laws and regulations. Probably laws and regulations in other countries, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

yes, good point. yes, every year, there are significant changes. since they are significant, they are notable for inclusion. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

the reference for this item points to an article detailing changes for this year, so that makes that information more current and topical for inclusion. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Annual events should not be listed if appropriate in subarticles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

enactment of new regulations is not an annual event. and even some things that are annual, such as passage of the federal budget. are still notable. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Clearly local regulations of no international significance. It's even open for discussion if the text should be included in the 2020_in_the_United_States article as the current phrasing is so vague, it doesn't provide any useful information. --McSly (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Clearly has no relevance in this article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayalath Manoratne

Jayalath Manoratne is an interesting case. He seems notable, but all the sources appear to be in English, in a country where English is not a principle language. Although this may be a Wikidata problem, he also seems not to have articles in any other language's Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The importance tag has now been removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

G20 Davos Outlook 2020

At Alpha1Strategy, we have created a calendar of forthcoming political and economic events for 2020. If any of these are useful, please feel free to add these to the 2020 page. Here is the link:

http://alpha1strategy.com/thought-leadership/g20-davos-outlook-2020-calendar-focus/

(Alpha1Strategy (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC))

Doomsday Clock

The dooms day clock moves every now and then, that doesn't make it notable, also the dooms day clock supposedly predicts an upcoming nuclear disaster or world war 3, but historically it has been extremely inaccurate and useless. The closest a nuclear disaster came to happening was in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis but the clock did not move mush then, rather it moved in 2018 when diplomacy has become an option over outright war in almost everywhere in the world excluding middle east. Take the China-India case, tensions were as high in 2017 as it was in 1962, but where as in 1962 it led to war, it was resolved diplomatically in 2017. Due to nuclear deterrence India and Pakistan did not go to war in 2019, unlike in 1999 when they had the Kargil War, in 2019 were higher but they did not go to war. The dooms day clock has always been misleading, and it keeps changing, as useless it has always been I really do not think it is notable at all. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I quite agree. I would remove the entry from all year articles where it has appears, including this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Jim Lehrer

I'm not sure whether he's sufficiently notable. I consider him notable, but I'm in the US. Other comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Notable only in the US. We should remove him from the international page. --McSly (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@McSly I'd say he's notable outside the US considering his show was internationally viewable. The Obama-McCain and Obama-Romney debates were internationally viewed when Jim Lehrer was the moderator. But, how do you define importance? He had international fame, what other criteria in your opinion should be present?CountingStars500 (talk)19:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A quick glance through Spanish-language news from Mexico & Spain reveals a half-dozen obituaries for Mr. Leher. Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

'Importance?' tag

I'm just wondering why there's weird inconsistencies about who gets the 'importance?' notice next to a name on the death list. There's important people who have it next to their name but insignificant people who don't have it next to them. What's the standard people are using?CountingStars500 (talk)19:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• In general (and it is a general term, there can sometimes be exceptions), people tend not to be considered for this list if they were generally unknown outside their own country (those should appear in the article "2020 in X country" rather than this one). The ones currently tagged do appear to be for that reason. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan coronavirus

@StealthGuy1227: Not every single event related to the Wuhan coronavirus should be listed here. Choose a few of the most important, and reserve details for Wuhan coronavirus or Timeline of the Wuhan coronavirus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthGuy1227 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Terry Jones death

I think Terry Jones is notable enough to have a picture on the side, he was a member of Monty Python and a famous comedic actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.60.207 (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but there's not enough room, yet, with Kobe Bryant's image, unless a number of the incidental coronavirus events are included. There will be enough room by mid-February, anyway. If we remove that image of Kobe, we could add two other images. The image is presently commented out, so can easily be added when we have room. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of obits in the Spanish language news sources about Mr. Jones, so I think he is notable enough for inclusion, but I don't support the idea of a picture. Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disasters with less than 100 deaths

The Cuba earthquake has 0 deaths (as of now), disasters with 500 + deaths have not been included in the past like the Maharashtra floods of 2005 in the 2005 article, because it was strictly a domestic event. As I used to understand Wikipedia was not a day by day news coverage where people include every minor disasters that happen. Also earthquakes are something that happens all the time, those who knows geology would understand better than me, only those earth quakes above a certain magnitude, like over 5 on Richter scale can be felt. Only those that have severe significance, like 1000 deaths should be included. People now want to add everything now, before 2017 there was a recent year policy where only the most significant events would be added. 2005 had numerous deadly hurricanes but only Katrina was named in the 2005 article. Stan, Rita, etc were not included. In 2005 there were many earth quakes, but only the one in Pakistan with 80,000 + deaths and Indonesia with 1000 + deaths have been included. January 2020 now has almost the same amount of events as the whole year 2005 (only according to wikipedia that is). I hope people do not go adding disasters with less than 100 deaths (1000 preferable but since the recent year policy ended in 2017, at least 100 should be a must). If every single event has to be noted in 2020, then I feel the same should be done for all years 2000-2016 when the recent years policy was in full effect, the senior editors were so strict then and so many notable events had been excluded for being domestic events, having less than 1000 deaths, etc. Regardless I retreat to my main point, I really do not think disasters with less than 100 deaths or without some major internationally significant destruction should not be included. Its an issue of Wikipedia:Recentism. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Also I would like to show [2] as an example. In January 2009 it was overloaded with recent events, but the current 2008 article has been fixed. Only the Chinese earthquake that killed 87,000 is included. But the earth quakes of Japan and Kyrgyzstan with less than 100 deaths are now excluded, Hurricane Hanna that killed 500 + in Haiti and many other hurricanes except Ike are now excluded (but were included when 2008 was a recent year), as are many more events that are not significant enough. Anyway thats the last thing I would say about it. Its what majority editors decide that matters. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think an earthquake with 7.1M_w  is significant, regardless of the number of people who died, but I will go along with the guideline of 100 deaths for natural disasters. A look at 2019 reveals about a dozen natural disaster with far fewer than 100 deaths. I'd like to see some guidelines for other disasters--in 2019, a bar shooting in Brazil, a bus crash, a prison riot, and other such events were noted. On the other hand, cases of governments killing their own citizens (particularly in Africa and Middle East) and "collateral damage" due to wars are often ignored. Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael E Nolan 2019 is after the recent year policy ended and Wikipedia:Recentism has been a major issue from articles 2017, 2018, 2019. The policy was in full effect between 2000-2016. The Wikipedia:Recentism still applies though. 7.1 magnitude earthquakes have happened every now and then, there are year articles of 1000s of years, like say AD 102. It is not possible to trace all earthquakes with a 7 and above magnitude to happen and add them, and many such incidents have been excluded between 2000-2016 due to either being domestic events, having very low death toll, etc. for which they weren't considered significant enough. And bar shoot outs, prison riots are less common than earthquakes, unique events get more priority. Like the NK missile test was significant addition before 2017 when it became common and editors decided not to cover them much again due to increased frequency. earthquakes with too few death tolls are too common. But I agree 2017, 2018, 2019 have major Wikipedia:Recentism issues, so thats why I am trying to improve the 2020 article, I hope it does stay Wikipedia standard rather than becoming a day by day news coverage like 2017, 2018 and 2019 appears to be. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I slightly disagree. the earthquake is a natural event, not a man-made event. Based on that, the significance of this event is based on its intensity and magnitude, not on the number of casualties.

Additionally, for this article, and for timeline articles in general the goal is to include more items and information, rather than less. If timeline articles in past years reflected less events or less information, then it might be possible that the reason for that is that Wikipedia itself has grown and expanded as a resource. I appreciate your input.

Timeline articles have their own set of parameters and priorities as articles. they are different from regular encyclopedia articles in some important respects. the whole point here is to record recent events, while they are still current. We are trying to encourage more editors to come here and to help us to build up timeline articles as real encyclopedic coverage. I appreciate everyone's input and insights here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

So new editors now will get privileges those between 2002-2016 didn't? Well it was a different thing then when additions keept getting deleted because of the recent year policy considering them insignificant and editors were rather discouraged. Past years like say AD 102 were by no means less eventful than present years, but at that time there was no internet, literacy rate was low, events were not noted on a regular basis, so it will not be possible to find sources to events. I have never ever seen any policy where natural disasters are preferable to man made ones and no policy where an earthquake must be added solely by magnitude rather than death toll (in fact lower magnitude earth quakes cause more damage than higher ones, Lists of earthquakes, the 7.3 in Turkmenistan in 1948 killed 100,000 while the 9.6 one in Chile killed 7000). While it is important to note important events, we mustn't over flood every single recent years just because internet coverage is at an all time high and we can source everything now. Also by magnitude, then go on, add 7 + magnitude earth quakes on every years over the past 1000 years even those with 0 deaths, (most of them even have sources), why should 2020 and recent years only have the privilege of having every single disasters that occur regardless of the minimal impacts they have, like even if they have 5 people dead from those, I have no problem, add it to all the years you can source them, it would just look like over flooding and not really sensible, but not my headache. Wikipedia has been notorious for letting anybody add whatever they want, while in some cases editors prevent disruptive edits, there are countless articles with misinformation that no one has bothered cleaning up. i will leave 2020 to be just that, a day by day news coverage filled with over flooded information, where everything no matter how minor its actual impact is is added. This is indeed my last message here, feel free to do whatever you want. And thank you for this discussion, good day to all involved. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, bye. ShadowCyclone talk 00:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Unmanned space flight

People landed on the moon in 1969. Space probes have landed on Mars, Mercury, Venus, and I think an asteroid. Other space probes have gone far beyond Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. Unmanned space exploration represents great advances in technology, but new developments in space generally do not belong on this page. Michael E Nolan (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Gene Reynolds

He does seem a minor actor to me, but he does have articles in 9 other-language Wikipedias, which suggests some international importance, or one multi-lingual editor who likes him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement.

According to the article itself United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the agreement was signed in 2019, so why is it listed in 2020 ? Dilbaggg (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

If you read the linked article it explains who and why Trump signed it in 2020. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok now. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Weatherall

We seem to be having a number of extremely notable musicians being tagged for importance, when their wider notability is easily ascertained from the coverage of their deaths. For this one, full obituaries in - BBC, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Guardian, Variety, Der Spiegel, Corriere della Sera, 7News (Aus), NOS (Norway), Globo (Brazil), etc, etc. His influence on the music scene can easily be ascertained by reading any one of those articles. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Domestic events

Domestic events were not supposed to be added unless they had significant international coverage, that was the case of the 2002-2016 articles when the recent years policy Wikipedia:Recent years was in effect. But ever since then, every minor political events elections, resignations, etc, keep getting added. This is over flooding the article (like so many political events happened all over the world in 2005 but moist weren't added and removed due to the ry policy and avoided over flooding the articles). The main issue is that this gives a false impression 2020 is more eventful and important than the years 2002-2016 which is not the case. I see User:ProjectHorizons (like with these edits in the 2008 article [3], [4], [5]] still monitoring those articles and cutting down events based on those arguments but does nothing with 2018, 2019 or 2020 which are over flooded with contents that under those arguments lack notability and violates Wikipedia:Recentism. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If you see a problem with domestic events, do what ProjectHorizons is doing and cut them down yourself. ShadowCyclone talk 03:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

:: Ok Dilbaggg (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nakhon Ratchasima shooting

Why is the Nakhon Ratchasima shooting an internationally significant event? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not it should not be included here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why should it be less important than the Germany shooting? Because it is in the East and West is given more priority? So many shootings happened in the 2000s decade and earlier part of the 2010s decade but was omitted from the years article for the WP:RY policy. But my point is if the German one (of shorter duration and less death toll) is included under the current rules, so should the Asian one. But yeah I will trust the judgement of the senior editors. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think the German one should be included, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case I agree. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed - both have been removed. Jim Michael (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Elections

Two elections were added earlier this month. I removed them, because we don't usually include them in main year articles. However, they were reinstated. I've now removed all the elections. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

International notability One way to demonstrate the required notability is that the event received independent news reporting from three continents on the event. Events which are not cited at all, or are not linked to an article devoted to the event, may be challenged on the talk page.

This wp:ry is strictly enforced between 2001-2017, and hopefully 2020 isn't forgotten as it falls under wp:ry too. The three continent news coverage should be verified before adding events. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The coronavirus issue falls into Wikipedia:Recentism, I think the three continent news coverage should be enforced regarding adding further events related to it. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A large chunk of a major European country being essentially shut down for a prolonged period is clearly notable, and of international significance. Why wouldn't it be? A city or town perhaps, I could understand, but we're talking about more than a quarter of Italy's population here. This is unprecedented in peacetime Europe. I'm happy to provide more references from other continents if you wish. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wjfox2005 Ok thats reasonable enough. Thank you. This particular event is indeed internationally significant. Events regarding coronavirus should be included only if they are as internationally significant as this. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's the biggest world news story for years & has a lot of historical notability. There are infected people in about 100 countries; it's much more extensive than the SARS, H5N1 & Ebola outbreaks. The effects on international travel and the economy are huge. It has caused a stock market crash and a massive fall in the price of oil and a large increase in the price of gold. We shouldn't include loads of details in this article, but this outbreak should certainly be covered here, with national info in articles such as 2020 in China, 2020 in Iran, 2020 in Italy, 2020 in Iran etc. Jim Michael (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well if it has international impact then. The Italy event was to "prevent global spread". Purely domestic events should not be included. TB killed billions over the world throughout history, only last century was a vaccine discovered. (Even in 2018 TB killed 1.5 million), [6] That doesn't mean all events and affects of TB are used in say the 19th Century years (the 1800s was a peak time of TB pandemic and had sever impact on business and everything in those days, the 1800 year articles do not cover it much as they were not "recent years"). Coronavirus with international impact should definitely be included, but impacts that are solely domestic should be avoided. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Jim Michael and Wjfox. The COVID-19 outbreak is an undeniably notable global event that has and is having an impact on international markets, travel, and economies and governments and simply ignoring it/pretending major events related to it are not notable for this article would be disingenuous. As stated already, national info should generally be relegated to their relevant articles, but when undeniably notable occurrences such as when entire populations of first world countries are forced into quarantine and when global markets are crashing and prices shifting about like they are, we can't just ignore it all because the events are "domestic". RopeTricks (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No one said to ignore coronavirus events. It has just been said to include only the events with international notability. Events that are strictly domestic are the ones that should be ignored and it not possible to nor necessary to include every events relating to coronavirus just like all other epidemics and their impacts. As long as the three content coverage of the events of COVID-19 is maintained as per WP:RY there is no problem. But just like all previous years on WP:RY there is no need to over flood 2020 with events that have only been domestic. The current additions of COVID-19 are those that have international linkage and so are ok. Those that are only domestic may be challenged. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

djoser pyramid

I think it is important to add the reopening of the pyramid for two main reasons: 1- this is the first time in history the interior of the pyramid will be opened for visitors 2- the pyramid was going to collapse and this renovations saved it,and take into consideration this pyramid is one of the oldest stone buildings in the world plus the reopening get extensive coverage from all major news websites.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus own article

I think this disease related events is over flooding this article. For this as per WP:Recentism we can follow the example of Hurricane Katrina from 2005 with the news spike:

"A news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way. The result might be a well-written and well-documented neutral-point-of-view article on a topic that might hardly be remembered a month later (see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate). Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research.

An event that occurs in a certain geographic region might come to dominate an entire article about that region. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the New Orleans, Louisiana, article was inundated with day-by-day facts about the hurricane. The solution: an article on the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans was created to collect this quickly accumulating content."

So we can make a new article consisting all the impacts of coronavirus (e.g. Timeline of the 2020 Coronavirus/Covid-19 Pandemic) as there have been many and there is likely to be many more, and if we add everything here it will just overflood the 2020 article and other "internationally notable events" of the year will not get sufficient priority due to the covid-19 related event flooding. At this stage this seems more like a day by day news coverage than a wikipedia article. This is just my suggesting, I leave it to senior editors that maintained the WP:RY policy between 2002-2017 and 2020 certainly falls under it. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't "flooded" by it. So far, only six mentions of the disease since 1st January, and some of those aren't even the disease itself, but rather its economic effects, such as the Dow Jones, etc. With all due respect, I think you're really overreacting to this. The article is fine as it is. We've covered the major points that are needed, i.e. the most important WHO announcements, the Italy quarantine, the plunge in the stock markets. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

All right, but there will be a lot more events regarding the disease, not even three months have passed. Maybe after a certain number of new entries we can consider a sub article similar to 2020 in gaming: 2020 in coronavirus or an article titled "list of all impacts of coronavirus" regarding all its economic and other impacts. Let it stay the current way for now though. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(ecx2) The article is not presently flooded by it. On January 9, there were entries for 5 of the 9 days in January. Timeline of the Covid-19 pandemic looks like a good subject for an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Two months later, it certainly is now. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

{{Recentism}}

I'm not sure {{Recentism}} is the right tag, but there should be some tag noting that 2020 has less-important events than 2019, 2019 less-important events than 2018, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I proposed a recentism tag on 2018 talk page. I do not know what happened to some of the strict editors that used to butcher additions to the 2002-2017 years in the name of wp:ry, they just gave up on post 2017 years. 2005 was an ultra eventful year world wide, June has 0 events listed, the afghan and iraq wars have no coverage, only the Kashmir earthquake with 80,000 + dead is added, those with even 1000 + dead omitted (but those with less than 1000 are added post 2017), even the deadly Indian flood excluded, as is the bird flu epidemic and so much more. 2007 doesnt have the copa america, cricket world cup, etc listed, but these days this type of sporting events once considered "insufficiently important" are added, as in 2019. Wish either the harsh policy is reinforced on 2020 or the events that were butchered between 2002-2017 for wp:ry but wold have been added if the current flexible policy was used are added back. As for 2018 and 2019 they too deserve recentism tags. Thats all I can say about this. I have said similar things on previous discussions on this talk page and won;t say no more about it. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to remove the tag please reach a consensus. I will agree with whatever the majority decides. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland

This should show that on January 13, 2020, Northern Ireland made same-sex marriage legal, which was an important event for the LGBT scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re1ny.Dev (talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's on 2020 in Northern Ireland, but isn't important enough for this article. Jim Michael (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Check WP:RY, the three continent coverage rule applies. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

2 April: Shenzhen became the first Chinese city to ban the sale and consumption of cat and dog meat due to the coronavirus pandemic being linked to wild meat. Lorgadh (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Doesnt seem to be internationally significant (not related to covid-19 directly) and is better in 2020 in China. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

East-African Locust Swarm

Saw no mention of the 2020 African Desert Locust swarm; January 2020, the outbreak is affecting Ethiopia, Kenya, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia.

Perhaps date (FEB, 01) when Somalia or Pakistan declared a National emergency? 167.130.93.50 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC) d.

The article is short & doesn't give a good idea of how badly each of the 5 countries have been affected. Jim Michael (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

Add to the deaths Al Kaline, MLB hall of fame died april 6 37.46.37.71 (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

Tom Lester 1938 - 2020. Died April 20th. American Actor. SilasGriffin04 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done DarthFlappy (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

You are cordially invited to edit Draft:Mismanagement of the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic. Calmecac5 (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Deaths - April 30th

Actor Rishi Kapoor died on April 30th, he was as prominent as Irfan Khan and both their deaths led to heartbreak in India, this is why I think he also should be mentioned Kapilnchauhan77 (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RK's in the Deaths section of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Singapore COVID proposed cleanup

I propose that we delete "April 3 – COVID-19 pandemic: Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong announced a much stricter set of rules called "Circuit Breaker", starting 7 April until at least 4 May. All non-essential workplaces, including Singapore Pools, will be closed during this period. Schools will move to home-based learning, and preschools will close except to provide services for parents without alternative care arrangements, from 8 April to 4 May.[72][73] Later on April 21, the circuit breaker measures were extended until June 1.[74]" considering that:

1. It's Covid 2. It's only in Singapore, not unique/special, and almost not affect on any other country or for the most part, the region. 3. It's incredibly long/buff and contains a great deal of unnecessary information referring future dates

Dantheanimator (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

175.33.12.12 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

May 23 Hana Kimura, Professional Wrestler for Stardom (b. 1997)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Interstellarity (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Under Events - May 25 - African-American man George Floyd brutally murdered by police, launching riots across the US 2604:3D09:D07F:D530:894D:D479:93CE:6CE5 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:NPOV. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be added? It is rather significant, since it has caused another wave of anti-police riots in a while. I think this is like the Iranian friendly-fire accident in that it isn't "internationally/universally signifant/relevant" in itself but in the broader context it is. If the Iranian accident is allowed, this should be allowed.Dantheanimator (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303

This should be excluded because it was a domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• As per consensus, tragedies with death tolls of 100+ are included. As this event has a death toll of 97 deaths and dozens of injuries, it qualifies to be included. Also, the site of the crash, Karachi, is the largest and one of the most (if not the most) populous cities in Pakistan, making this accident unique among other ones. Best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Where's the consensus for that? Jim Michael (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

The Spacex Launch on May 30th is no longer scheduled. The launch has since occured. RobloxBoi (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Addition of American protests and riots beginning from the death of George Floyd and it's influence across the entire United States, violence between police and peaceful protesters, and the sheltering of the President. Protests have been held internationally for the Black Lives Matter movement.

This should not be considered offensive or controversial but written in history as real televised and documented events. 76.68.62.198 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Remove the "Antifa led riots" sentence from the May 26th section until it's proven to be the case. No current conclusive evidence that Antifa is a leader or even a large part of the riots exists. The rioting has been largely spontaneous and primarily a response to police actions against peaceful protesters. Furthermore, Antifa is not an organized group, and thus anyone can claim to be antifa if they are against fascism, as it stands for Anti-Fascist.

47.55.215.238 (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Remove the planned March on Washington?

Should the planned March on Washington against police brutality be included in the scheduled event? There have been many marches on Washington throughout the past few years, and some of them aren't considered significant so, should this be considered significant? Dantheanimator (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The event has not taken place yet, so it's too early to determine its significance. I would remove it for now and take a wait to see approach to see if it does in fact become significantor not. ShadowCyclone talk 00:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the advice. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

• • June 4 - German prosecutors say that they believe Madeleine McCann is dead, and are investigating a 43-year-old German convicted sex offender, identified as Christian B, on suspicion of murder. 2A02:C7D:D67B:4B00:FD3E:E40B:4CC0:A0A5 (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 16:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit ideas

Add Elon Musk's son under the list of births Uhrfuvf (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Uhrfuvf, Most likely not notable for inclusion. --McSly (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep or delete Queen Elizabeth II's address

Should "Queen Elizabeth II gives an address to the nation, just the fifth such event in the monarch's 68-year reign, where she compares social isolation to the world war evacuations, thanks the public for their resilience and the world for unifying." be kept or deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheanimator (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Seems like a minor, local event. Dantheanimator, btw, the process in our case is _not_ "Until a decision is reached, this event should remain on the page" like you said. Per WP:BRD, the page should remain in the state prior to the addition until consensus is reached on whether to include the text or not. -McSly (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you McSly for informing me, I am still relatively new so I did not know the order. Sorry for mistake. Also, should I add each event I propose as a new section or add them all as one section? Regarding Queen Elizabeth II's address, the address itself might not be all that significant but the fact that it is her speech, and only her 5th one in her entire reign, that is significant. That is my main reason for the inclusion. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. This is still mostly a local event. It is actually cover on the 2020_in_the_United_Kingdom article as well as her first ever Easter message on April 11. -McSly (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove Even as a Brit myself, this is not important enough for the main 2020 page, it belongs in the 2020 in the United Kingdom country page, as do many of the other stories that only really affect one country or a small locality. Similarly all the stories about companies in trouble due to COVID-19. Thousands of companies are in trouble because of this; we can't pick and choose some of them. It's similar to the cancelled sporting events; The Olympics may be notable, but again thousands of events have been cancelled. Clearly, the 2020 page is probably going to be longer than usual because of COVID-19, but it might be an idea to have a look at some of the previous year pages to get an idea of the type of events that are generally included here. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite for the explanation, I really appreciate it. I agree, they are many, many stories related to COVID-19 and decisions must be made. I will definitely reevaluate my proposed inclusions for actual importance and incorporate your advice into my future edits. Maybe as a solution to this issue we should develop a quota-like system where certain categories (sports, politics, etc) get a certain expected range of covered events? We do already have a semi-quota system for COVID-19, as it is not allowed to make up more than half of the events. I think the rules for event inclusion should be remade just for 2020, considering the uniqueness of this year. Again, thank you for the advice, I agree her speech should not be included on the events page.

Worldwide protests

The event on June 6th about the worldwide protests should be removed because its an arbitrary date. You can find sources of protests happening globally from atleast June 1st. I believe that adding to the date of the original domestic event that worldwide protests followed soon is the better approach. Helping6060 (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep but rework Any event that is internationally significant (such as worldwide protests) goes on this page. Domestic events do not go on this page, regardless of their importance in their country. However, I do agree with your objection about the date. Most of the time when their is an event that spans multiple days, such as the Macuto Bay raid, the best thing to do is to make it as a time span, so in this case it is like "June 1–6 – ". Hope this helps. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helping6060 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Add a photo of Sushanth Singh Rajput who died today. Abraham891 (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: A lot of people did today and every other day, not sure why we should put a picture of one of them, Wikipedia is not a memorial or an obituary site... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

North Korea blew up the Inter-Korean Liaison Office in Kaesong at 2:49pm. The office opened in 2018 2A02:C7D:D67B:4B00:6CBB:5944:4EEF:8585 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, please provide reliable sources that support any changes. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Jean Kennedy Smith

Should her entry be put up on this page, let alone an image of her? It is my understanding that most Ambassadors and diplomats (unless they are exceptionally well-known and consequential internationally) of any nation aren't considered notable enough to be added to the main yearly page, just as local politicians generally aren't added unless they are heads of state, or heads of government (and maybe Deputy heads). As far as I'm aware, her main claim to (minor) notability is the fact that she was a member of the Kennedy family and the (last surviving) sibling of JFK, RFK and Ted Kennedy. That to me indicates that while her image on "2020 in the United States" would perhaps be warranted, I don't see any reason why she should have her photo up here. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Beginning of the end?

Surely ontop of the COVID19 pandemic we consider just how factually bad climate change has become? Looking back on things this year should be considered a turning point where our inaction towards climate change is the beginning of the end of human civilization as we know it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.243.178 (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not relevant and you should not use a Wikipedia talk page to preach your own political opinions. - Imperator Roman 1:54, July 1st, 2020

Scheduled event(July 17 - Planned launch of NASA's Mars 2020 mission) contradicts with cited source

On NASA's website it is said that the launch window is scheduled between July the 22th and August the 11th, yet on Scheduled it is written that the launch is scheduled for July the 17th. I want to fix that, but I don't know if the launch window should be written on there or a single date, since every other event on that article is a single date.

Pakistan Stock Exchange attack

"An attack on the Pakistan Stock Exchange in Karachi leaves eight people dead and seven others injured." Is this notable enough for inclusion? I know this is on (as of the time of this message) the ITN page for the English Wiki but is it notable enough for this page? In my understanding, any attack that is either not internationally significant, historic, and/or deadly (having a death toll of 100+) is not included on this page. Considering this, isn't this insignificant? Best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Removed Jim Michael (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jim Michael. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

The coronavirus case milestone dates should be changed. According to worldometers.info/coronavirus, 10m cases/500k deaths worldwide was reached June 27, 9m was reached June 21, 8m on June 14, 7m on June 7, 6m on May 29, 5m on May 20, and 4m on May 9. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This does not appear to be a reliable source. You can familiarize yourself with what sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia at WP:RELIABLE. If you find a better source to support your edit, you may add it below and reactivate this edit request. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: how do you know it's not reliable? TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

Can we add Michael Angelis to the list of deaths? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Angelis 81.101.15.25 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC) 81.101.15.25 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 11:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Angelis was not internationally known and should be removed. Deb (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

UK lockdown

Should "The United Kingdom goes into lockdown to contain COVID-19." be included on the 2020 page? Almost every country in the world has had or still has a lock-down so, what makes this notable? Also consider that the U.S.'s lock-down and other major countries lock-downs are not included on this page, so simply saying that the UK is important is not enough. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps the UK alone isn't notable. But the lockdowns worldwide are clearly notable and absolutely deserve some sort of mention. These lockdowns have turned society upside-down and caused the biggest societal changes in a century! Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

To add to this. The article COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns has a timeline of lockdowns. I would argue that China (i.e. Wuhan), being the first, should be included on 2020. And Italy, for the first nation-wide lockdown. But perhaps, for the Italy entry, include an additional sentence alluding to the rest. It seems they all occurred within a timespan of about six weeks, so perhaps include a date range, covering all other countries? Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I 100% agree, lockdowns worldwide are important but each individually is unimportant (unless there is something special about it, in the case of Italy and India). I don't know whether China's lockdown is already on the page. If it is, then it is significant. If it isn't, I'll look over it. Both Italy and India are on the article. It's okay to build on an already significant event that is posted. However, if you plan on expanding the Italy or India lockdown event, please make sure not to make it too long. I generally would make sure to have a maximum of 3 not run-on sentences. Thanks Wjfox2005 for replying. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability of certain events

Should "Taal Volcano in Luzon erupts, forcing evacuation and disrupting air traffic." be added or left off?

Should "King Salman issues a royal decree, declaring that people will no longer be executed in Saudi Arabia for crimes they were convicted of when they were minors." be added or left off?

Should "Protests erupt in major cities across Lebanon for the second day over the country's continuing economic problems. Banks and vehicles are set on fire, and clashes between the protestors and the army in Tripoli leave around 40 soldiers wounded." be added or left off?

Should "Thousands of people protest outside the House of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia in the capital Belgrade, in response to President Aleksandar Vučić's plan on introducing stricter lockdown measures in Belgrade, due to the rising number of COVID-19 cases in the city." be added or left off?

Should "Venezuela will hold the 2020 Venezuelan parliamentary election." be added or left off?

I'm not familiar enough with most of these to personally know their significance. For the Lebanon protests though, it shouldn't be included considering the fact that there have been many protests this year and this is not notable enough relative to the other ones covered. For the Serbia protests, is that a lot of protesters relative to the others? It feels like that. Also, for the Venezuela elections, does this have some significance relative to the political crisis in the country or is this just the same old? In any case, would appreciate someone else's opinion or thoughts on these events importance's. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The King Salman royal decree is notable, and a significant cultural milestone for Saudi Arabia. Not sure about the other entries. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Reposting King Salman's royal decree. Thanks Wjfox2005. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

About the 2020 Venezuelan parliamentary election I think are a really important elections (even more in Latam), form an important event of the current crisis in Venezuela, we're not talking about a normal and simple parlamentary elections. Venezuela at this moment is not a normal country, is a country with a refugee crisis, it's a nation with 2 partially recognized administrations (or inclusive 3). And the most important thing of this is that: the Assembly is the only public power with recognition by more of 60 countries. So, for these and many more reasons more I believe it should be added. That's all. --Mauriziok (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree on that one, because of the current volatile situation in Venezuela. Deb (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that atleast the volcano eruption should be kept, and the Serbian protests too, maybe. I'm not too familiar with the Lebanese ones so I can't say should they be left off.

One thing that maybe is a bit misleading, is that "Taal Volcano in Luzon erupts, forcing evacuation and disrupting air traffic" sounds like it was just a small eruption, and like nothing didn't actually happen except air traffic was little disrupted. No, that's not all, thousands of people lost their homes, at least 39 people were left dead, air traffic was disrupted. I don't think that's just a "minor" -event.

And for the Serbian protests, they (plus Bulgarian protests) are a big thing in the European media at least.

My final opinion is that keep the volcano eruption, other people can discuss wether the others should be left off. :) Armaanikaks (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Deb and Armaanikaks for your feedbacks. Yeah, their role in the Venezuelan crisis 100% warrants inclusion on this page, so I'll re-add it. Also, thank you Armaanikaks for telling me about how serious the Taal eruption was. I thought it might be some minor eruption with no physical damage. The damage it done definitely makes this notable enough for this page. For the Serbian protests, I think I'll try to combine it into 1 event with the Bulgarian protests since both are similar and together are notable. It seems the only event that needs further consideration is the Lebanese protests. Thank you all again for the feedback, I'll re-post the events soon. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Importance of COVID-19 infection milestone

While I agree that the 100K, 1M, 5M, 10M are important milestone of the disease and worth to be mention it. Is it necessary to mention other COVID-19 milestone figure like 3M, 4M, 6M, 7M, 8M, 9M, 11M ? My opinion is that, this article is describe notable event in year 2020, and the milestone of COVID-19 other than figure like 100K, 1M, 10M are not important and not notable events, and no need to mention it. Joeccho (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Deb (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say keep everything up to and including 2M (the exponential growth rate between 1 and 2M was significant), and do only five million increments from then on – 5M, 10M, 15M, etc. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

People who should be considered for removal from Deaths section

• Michael Angelis, UK actor of minor note, little known outside the UK
• Pau Donés, Spanish musician, little known outside Iberia
• Eppie Wietzes, very minor Canadian racing driver
• Keith Tippett, UK jazz musician, little known outside the UK (or in it)
• Mario Corso, Italian club footballer (not international) (my mistake - I withdraw that suggestion)
• Pierino Prati, another Italian club footballer - not even an international (my mistake - I withdraw that suggestion)
• James Dunn (theologian), UK academic, little known outside his field
• Freddy Cole, US musician, mainly notable for his family connections
• Olga Tass, Olympic gymnast who didn't win any individual medals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

• @Deb: Both Corso and Prati were international footballers (23 and 14 appearances for Italy). Corso managed Inter Milan and Prati scored a hat-trick in a European Cup Final. Freddy Cole was nominated for a Grammy as recently as 2018, but I'm not sure about that one. Keith Tippett was really well known in jazz circles, but I'm aware that's something of a niche. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Thanks for that, @Black Kite:. The international caps normally come under the club caps in the infoboxes but these are above so I didn't spot them. So I withdraw those suggestions. It's good to examine these every so often, though, isn't it? Deb (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • No other comments, so I'll remove the UK names, plus Dones, Wietzes and Tass. Deb (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to update this list a little bit @Deb:, I'd also include as consideration for removal (the majority of which has had the importance tag put on them for a while now):

• Jean Kennedy Smith, American diplomat, main claim to fame is for being the sister (and last surviving sibling) of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy
• Hugh Downs, American broadcaster and television personality, little known outside the United States
• Everton Weekes, Barbadian cricketer, had the importance tag placed on him for a while (personally have little issue with his inclusion)
• Nick Cordero, Canadian actor of minor note, doesn't seem to be notable enough outside North America
• Phyllis Somerville, American actress, also not particularly notable enough internationally
• Regis Philbin, American actor, singer, and media personality, mainly well-known and notable within North America
• Hans-Jochen Vogel, German lawyer and politician, was a significant domestic politician within Germany but not so much internationally (though this could also open debate as to whether or not Opposition leaders who never became Prime Minister/President/Chancellor should be included in these pages)
• Herman Cain, American businessman and politician, mainly gained coverage due to circumstances of death, and has little significance as a businessman or politician outside the United States

--Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• • From my point of view I'd never heard of Downs, Cordero, Somerville, Vogel or Cain, so I would support their removal. Jean Kennedy Smith is a bit different - admittedly she's in the news because she's a Kenndy, but that in itself may be newsworthy. Everton Weekes was quite a big name in cricket - he stopped playing around the time I was born yet I still knew of him. Philbin I'd heard of though I couldn't have told you what he did for a living. Deb (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I did know of Philbin a little bit @Deb:, but almost exclusively because of the American media I consumed (specifically his cameo appearances in The Simpsons and Seinfeld). Nevertheless, I think figures like Philbin are best added in the "Year in Topic" section. I'm sort of torn with Vogel, though lean towards moving him to "Year in Topic" as well. More or less agreed with the rest, particularly with making Weekes the exception due to his significance in the field of cricket. As @Alsoriano97: pointed out regarding Cain, he does have pages in 30+ languages, but I don't necessarily think that should qualify for automatic inclusion - given that American businessmen who (albeit unsuccessfully) run for the Presidential nomination of a major party tend to have an advantage in having articles written about them (while if you apply the same for almost any other nation, the same is simply not the case). Most of the international coverage of his death centred around its circumstances - specifically catching COVID-19 at a Donald Trump rally and subsequently succumbing to the virus. Tragic and perhaps newsworthy, but I stand by that he should be moved to "Year in Topic". There's also Wilford Brimley to consider, who has also just passed - though I lean towards including him. Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I’ve now removed everyone mentioned except for Weekes and Brimley, and moved all of them to their respective “Year in Topic” pages. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

John Lewis is relevant enough to be added to the Deaths section

The addition of John Lewis was reverted by a user with an edit summary explanation of "we should refrain from including local politicians of any country to this page unless they served as heads/deputy heads of government/state or achieved special notability internationally". However, John Lewis is much more well-known as a prominent and influential civil rights leader/activist than as a politician. Pretty sure he's relevant enough to be added to the Deaths section of the 2020 page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. John Lewis wasn not just a representative, he was a civil rights leader famous around the world. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Being a civil-rights leader of international renown, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and numerous awards, recognized as one of the great human rights activists of our time, John Lewis is MORE than relevant enough. His removal from the page is biased and misguided, and his inclusion is necessary to a person of his impact. The man who organized student nonviolent protests across the nation as the freedom rides and lunch counter sit ins gained support, the man who led the marches on Bloody Sunday in Selma, John Lewis is a man of special notability. To think otherwise is to ignore his incredible spirit and legacy. (User:DroboBrandegee 00:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the points made such as being the recipient of a Medal of Freedom, or “national mourning acknowledged by three Presidents”. These points are completely irrelevant for his inclusion on this page, which goes to the concern that Wikipedia and the yearly articles are far too US-centric and US-biased in general. There’s been far too many cases of American Congressional politicians being added to this page with very little notability outside the United States - while politicians of a comparable stature in other countries are excluded. However, with all that being said, a consensus seems to have formed that John Lewis should be included on the basis of his work as a civil rights leader and activist - and that his stature internationally, which has since been demonstrated in the wake of his passing, stems from this. On that basis I now side with the consensus in favour of including him on this page - though not so much for an image inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep. I don't live in the USA, but I can see he's a notable figure. He was featured prominently on BBC News and other news sites here in the UK. People who edit 2020 need to stop being so obsessed with deleting everything. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he has, and I agree he should stay. But we are too US-centric and that's why we need to review additions and remove doubtful entries. Deb (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are too US-centric, but I'd just note that Lewis is so notable that a discussion about whether a blurb about his death should appear on the ITN part of the Main Page has only just closed with a narrow consensus against. This is not the person to have the US/anti-US discussion about. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Tim Smith

There seems to be some dispute about whether Tim Smith of The Cardiacs should be included in the Deaths section. I'm British and was into the music of the 1970s but I've never heard of either Smith or his group. Black Kite, please could you explain why you think he should stay? Deb (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Well ... his death was only announced a few hours ago, and so far I see obituaries on the BBC, every major British newspaper, Pitchfork, Billboard, Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, Finland, Russia, Italy, Canada, Ireland, Australia ... Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cardiacs were the very definition of a cult band. They had fans all over the world because they were, well, pretty unique (as you'll see if you nip off to YouTube and search for, as an example, "Tarred and Feathered"). This is another example of people removing stuff purely because (no offence, I totally understand why) they hadn't heard of them. Black Kite (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

BBC? Are you sure? Deb (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Black Kite (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. How come no articles in other languages though? Deb (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

in spanish, dutch, German, lenta.ru also has an article in russian but I'm not going to go through SBL to get it whitelisted for this purpose and I'm sure there are plenty of others if you change your language settings. For native english speakers, the default is likely to show english...Praxidicae (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never even heard of this guy and even I'm able to find sources...Praxidicae (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean on other wikipedias, not on music websites. Deb (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because no one has taken the time to write it? It's absurd to have this as a "requirement" especially when it's not abundantly clear to even experienced editors. The lack of inclusion on other projects is entirely irrelevant to this when it's clear that there is a universal notability. Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a requirement. But if someone has fans around the world and is internationally known, you would expect there to be articles on other wikis. You've never heard of him, I've never heard of him, and as Black Kite says, cult bands are by definition less well known than some other bands. So what is it that makes it appropriate for him to be here? I think it's a reasonable question. Deb (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Question: what would happen if I went back through 2020 and removed every entry that didn't have an obit from, say, more than 10 countries? Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of him because it's not my style of music. It doesn't mean he isn't notable and suitable for inclusion here. The band for which he receives his notability, Cardiacs has 8 or 9 entries on various other projects. Why is it inappropriate here? And you didn't say it but another editor who is gatekeeping this article implied it three times. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I also don't understand why anyone is quibbling over this. Anri Jergenia is so questionable that we even have it tagged for verification and has, what, 5 entries? Praxidicae (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I quibble all the time, as you'll see in previous discussions, because I think the list gets unmanageable if we include every person that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I didn't say it's inappropriate for him to be here; I'm asking what is it that makes it appropriate to have a name here that doesn't seem to be internationally known or even well-known in his home country. Deb (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked through the 2020 deaths and over 50% of them have less worldwide coverage than Tim Smith. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Black Kite, I assume you are talking about off-Wiki. But that's a "STUFF EXISTS"-type argument. In general, would you argue for keeping a minor entertainer rather than the prime minister of a small country who might not be known worldwide? Deb (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

PS. If it helps, I don't see much justification for including Francisco Rodríguez Adrados either - and he has articles on several other Wikis. Deb (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already warned User:MrMimikyu1998 as they have been disruptive on this page recently anyway (i.e. removing John Lewis). I'm not sure what the motivation of others is. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 July 2020

Could the following fact be added for the day 22-07-2020:

The United States orders the closure of China's consulate in Houston. Morgan Ortagus, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of State, says that the United States directed the consulate's closure "in order to protect American intellectual property and Americans' private information". The Chinese government condemns the "outrageous and unjustified" move and threatens countermeasures against the United States. (Al Jazeera) Freedom.to.distribute.information (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see how things develop before we decide how internationally significant this is. Deb (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This page is no longer protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Regis Philbin

Should Regis be considered notable enough internationally for inclusion here? Have no strong feelings either way, though my impression is that he seems to mainly be notable as a media personality within the US. Would be good to have a consensus in any case. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think he's fine to include. He was mostly notable in the US, but his acting roles mean he isn't completely obscure to a global audience. Indeed, he made the news in the UK/India/Australia/NZ/Sweden, and probably more but I got bored of checking. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Well, I'd at least heard of him though I couldn't have told you what job he did. He's got a lot of entries in other language Wikipedias, which can be an indication. Deb (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Green

Do you think Peter Green’s image should be here for inclusion? I don’t understand how there’s so many images in the deaths section, but I kind of agree with Deb, since I’ve heard of Green until he died and his image shouldn’t be here for inclusion. What do you think? Gar (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think he "deserves" an image but we don't seem to have a decent one available so better not to include him until we have. Deb (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. That’s fair. I’m also annoyed that User:Thescrubbythug choose to have Little Richard’s image of when he was in the height of his career and I told him idk how many times that the image doesn’t match on his profile since I think that’s how it should be when adding in images of people, but I’m not too sure about that. Kyu (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There could be a good reason for that, @MrMimikyu1998:. The licensing for some images means they are not allowed to be used on articles other than the main profile, so you can't use them in a year article. It may be that the Little Richard image is one of those. Deb (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the Peter Green discussion (of which I've already made my position in favour perfectly clear on my edit summary. I've also added an alternate photo which both me and Deb agree is acceptable) and in response to the point about choice of images, firstly I agree with Deb. Secondly, in a lot of cases famous figures who are older and have been well known for decades tend to have a recent photo of them as the main photo of Wikipedia. Copyright issues is often the reason. Another main reason is that it is usually preferred to have a more up-to-date photo as the main photo for a living person's biography, rather than one that is historical. As Little Richard only recently passed away, this explains why his main photo up to, and as of now has been one of him as a much older man in the late 2000s. But with him now deceased, it should make sense to use a photo of him at the peak of his career, and of which most people remember and think of when they think of Little Richard (and the same goes for everyone else - provided that there's no copyright issues). So I do still believe that the colour photo of Little Richard from the 1950s should be prioritised, provided there's little complaint. In any case, there's no rule for pages like this where we must use the (currently) main photo from the person's profile. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

John Horton Conway

I'd like to argue for removing Conway's photo, simply because it's not a very good one and we don't seem to have anything better. We already have an image of one British mathematician (Freeman Dyson) so it wouldn't affect the balance. Deb (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There's been no objection to this, so I've removed that particular image. Deb (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclones

I already added Hurricane Hanna but do you think I should add things like Tropical Storm Cristobal and Tropical Storm Fay? I like hurricanes (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Deb (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay I like hurricanes (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me give a more descriptive and less blunt reason, tropical cyclones that don't leave a lasting impact on affected areas and/or have extensive media coverage aren't notable for inclusion in this article. ShadowCyclone talk 06:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Spanish King Self-Imposed Exile Importance

Should "Former King of Spain Juan Carlos I goes into self-imposed exile amid a financial scandal" be added or left off? I removed this earlier because there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this at all. He isn't even the current king nor was he exiled by the government, but by himself. Would like to get a consensus on this. Dantheanimator (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There are probably other entries in the Events section that are equally non-notable, but I would certainly support its removal unless something more exciting happens as a result. Deb (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

U.S. 5 million COVID-19 cases mark

Should "The United States becomes the first country to record 5 million cases of COVID-19, at least a quarter of the current worldwide total." be added? Dantheanimator (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that should be on 2020 in the United States and COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Jim Michael (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Michael Brooks death

Michael Brooks death has been removed twice as of now for the reason and I quote that he is barely known outside the US Which I personally think is not a good reason.

I am creating this new section to prevent edit warring as I fear that if I revert again my new revert would be reverted again.

Maxime12346 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Maxime12346. See the many discussions above. If it was enough for a person to have a Wikipedia article, this section would be identical to "Recent Deaths". Deb (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Martin Birch

I see from Martin Birch's (rather short) article that he was significant in terms of British music but, despite the many articles in other-language Wikis, I'm not convinced that his international notability is great enough to include him in the Deaths section. Deb (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And I'd say the same about Pete Way. Deb (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with you about Way. I'd say Birch is notable enough however, we are talking top of the field in his profession. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take him out until such time as someone makes a case for him. Deb (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Belarus Presidential election & subsequent protests

Is this sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the events section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy3456 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think so. Deb (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

They're only notable enough for inclusion if there's a change of government. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done protests and election were posted as 1 event by another user already. The protests set a record for the country, which is notable in itself. Dan the Animator 17:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Image of Pedro Casaldáliga

User:Alsoriano97 has twice restored an image of Pedro Casaldáliga in the deaths section, which on my desktop causes an overflow beyond the end of the section. However, he writes: "I don't know from what support you have Wikipedia open, but there is even space to add this photo, or any other, at least from the Desk mode. I will not debate whether this photo should be put here because another user posted it and did not generate any type of complaint, so acceptance is tacit." I see that on my laptop there isn't an overflow, but on my desktop there definitely is. Alsoriano has declined to discuss this on the Talk page so I would like to know what other editors are seeing. Also, do others think that an image of Pedro Casaldáliga is "deserved"? Deb (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• It overflows for me as well (as does the image before it, slightly). Casaldáliga is fairly notable but I would say the the two that are there already from August are the two really notable August deaths (though you could make an argument for Julian Bream). If we get an obviously more notable death while there is still a lack of room, it should be replaced. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • User:TDKR Chicago 101 has replaced the image again, still claiming that there is no overflow. Deb (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Deb, Alsoriano97, and TDKR Chicago 101: I think I've worked the problem out.
  • This is what I see on Firefox. Clearly no room.
  • This is what I see on Chrome. No problem!
• So ... what do we do when it works for some and not others? Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• • What I see from your message is two girls in bikinis! But on Chrome, what I see is ... dammit, how do I insert a screen print here? Anyway, it's different from what you are seeing. Deb (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ben Cross

User:Unknown artist has added Ben Cross in the Deaths section. Although he was in a lot of films, I would argue that he wasn't a top-ranked actor. Despite Chariots of Fire, he wasn't a household name in the UK so I doubt he was widely known internationally. Deb (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Borderline, IMO. Has quite a few articles in other wikis. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue he's sufficiently notable for an entry, more or less as Black Kite said. His main claim to fame is of course Chariots of Fire, though that was by no means his only notable role. That said I don't think he should have his image put up at all. I think a bigger issue is the consistent adding of domestic politicians with little notability or relevance outside their country - most recently Slade Gorton, a former US Senator who was immediately added here by User:Unknown artist rather than 2020 in the United States. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wayne Fontana

I was a big fan of Wayne Fontana but I intend to remove him from the Deaths section as he had little notability outside the UK. Deb (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of the main musicians who passed away in August that were in contention for a spot here - Fontana, Pete Way and Frankie Banali - I would have said that Fontana was most deserving of a spot given his status as a frontman and the hits under his name. He *was* primarily well-known in the UK, but his hits also had notability elsewhere, such as Europe and Australia. That being said, these days he isn't exactly one of the more well-remembered British Invasion artists - nor is he an inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So overall I wouldn't have minded having Fontana included, though can understand if there's a consensus for his removal. In general though, I think a good rule of thumb especially with rock musicians of his era is to include them if they are a RRHOF inductee; add an image if they are a significant member of an inducted band; and for non-inductees we judge on a case-by-case basis. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the RRHOF (or, more precisely, I wouldn't use absence from the RRHOF) as any type of notability indicator, given the justifiable criticisms of it that it ignores whole genres of music and that only 8% of its inductees are female. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting, as it's always seemed to me that it takes very little to be allowed into most of these "Halls of Fame" :-) Deb (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The whole "genres of music omission" is debatable given that when it comes down to it, it really ought to be a *Rock and Roll* Hall of Fame (though there are definite issues of subgenre under-representation, such as with progressive rock), while the lack of female inductees are more of a reflection on how male-dominated these genres generally are rather than a reflection on the actual Hall of Fame. Genres that aren't rock - such as jazz, funk, hip-hop, country, etc. - are of course a completely different story. But speaking particularly of musicians to do with rock music and its subgenres, induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a good indicator of notability and/or significance - while rock musicians who have not been inducted should be judged on a case-by-case basis. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Protect this Article?

I have concerns that trolls will put in misinformation into this article. Even if they don't do things like spam, I fear that people will try to put misinformation on this article for political reasons (misinformation about what is really going on, who does what, incorrectly stating peaceful protests as violent riots, incorrectly stating shooters and murderers as having been a victim, etc.), malicious reasons (to misinform the public about COVID-19, to denounce mask wearing, to stir up chaos and divide people, etc.), and other reasons one might have to put misinformation in an article about events in 2020.

Given these concerns, can we have the article protected so that changes can only be made by people who are proven to be responsible and honest? We could make it so that the public can only suggest changes, and have moderators to keep the talk page troll-free.

So, could we have the 2020 article protected?

Damariobros (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. In practice, this article is a mess: random users adding or deleting things they shouldn't, or anonymous people vandalizing it. It must be protected. This and those of previous years. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose while I do agree with you and Alsoriano97, protecting this article isn't actually too helpful. Aside from the bots who undo the most egregious and obvious of vandalism, this page is watched/edited daily by many users. If someone edits this page for malicious reasons, then at least 1 editor will notice it and revert it. In the past these pages were protected in the weeks coming to the New Year. I think it should be the same for this year. Dan the Animator 17:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Laura addition

Should "Hurricane Laura makes landfall in Louisiana, making it the most powerful hurricane in terms of wind speeds to strike the state, tied with the 1856 Last Island Hurricane" be added/kept off?

It definitely is historic for Louisiana, but that's the issue, only for Louisiana. If it were historic for the whole Gulf region of the U.S. or at least a few other states, then it would be more notable I would argue. If events were added solely on whether they were historic in their state/province/oblast/town/etc, then many minor and other events that wouldn't be usually added would be added. Let me know your thoughts on the notability of this particular hurricane. Dan the Animator 19:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Deb (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Importance tags in the wrong places

Instead of tagging Lou Brock for importance, a famous baseball player and a Hall of Famer, why not tag Dragoljub Ojdanić, who basically has a semi stub of an article and from a google search the majority of the news of his death are from Serbian websites. Sumner Redstone was famous as well, just because they're American doesnt make them not important. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Same person who marked them for importance has now completely removed Lou Brock. They also removed Tom Seaver's notation of being a hall-of-famer. Hall of fame athletes should be important enough to note their death on this page, right? (Speaking of, Al Kaline (Deceased April 6) is missing from this page). Tanman2001 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Have a bit of perspective. A US Hall of Fame means nothing to non-US readers; it seems to me they let anyone in. Think about the baseball players in terms of their relative contribution and international reputation before suggesting that all of them should be included in the Year page. As yet, you haven't even included them in the Year in United States page. Deb (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing lesser figures

User:Alsoriano97 apparently believes that all international footballers should be placed in the Deaths section of this page, even when they don't appear on any Year in Topic page. Of the 28 footballers currently on this page, I propose removing the following:

• Pietro Anastasi - only 25 international caps, little international notability
• Radomir Antić - only 1 international cap
• Peter Bonetti - England's reserve goalkeeper, seldom the bride
• Theodor Wagner - lots of international caps but little notability outside Austria. His whole article only contains 5 lines of text.
• Joaquín Peiró - only 12 international caps
• Juan José Pizzuti - only 12 international caps

I'll be back with more proposals on this. Deb (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the debate in the right place. Let's see what other users thinks. Greetings. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

And:

• Arturo Chaires - only 22 international caps; his article has only 2 lines of text
• Mario Corso - only 23 international caps
• Harry Gregg - did play internationally, but mainly known for surviving the Munich air disaster
• Ardico Magnini - only 20 international caps
• Pierino Prati - only 14 international caps
• Michael Robinson (footballer) - only 24 international caps, little international notability

Note how Italy, Spain and the UK dominate the entries.

Also some minor actors that Alsoriano97 restored:

• Derek Fowlds - all his major roles were in programmes well-known in the UK but little-known outside the UK
• Philippe Nahon - four-line article tagged for verification

Please give views on these. Deb (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

None of them seems to be notable enough for this page. The footballers are certainly not. --McSly (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That you do not know them does not mean that they lack the necessary notableness. Are you going to tell me that someone who has more than 25, 15 or 20 pages on Wikipedia and his death has been reported by large newspapers in other countries is not relevant? It's just do the same job that I have done. ¡Pardiez! Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You're just adding everyone who dies, which will make the page even more unmanageable than it already is. Concentrate on those with international notability. Deb (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point. Who's adding everyone who dies? As I said above, I'm just adding the ones "that [...] has more than 25, 15 or 20 pages on Wikipedia and his death has been reported by large newspapers". Because I dedicate myself to research a little, whatever country they are from.. "Everyone"?, come on, you don't know my work then If you affirm this. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's too many. These days every man and his dog has entries in different language Wikipedias - especially European footballers who by the very nature of their activity are known to football fans in lots of European countries. Creating articles in different languages is also a well-known tactic used by some editors to get "their" articles more widely accepted. I realise we can't go back to the original target of no more than 50 births and/or deaths in each year article, but the sprawling mass of nonentities who are now listed is just not manageable. Deb (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute

Why aren't the West Coast fires mentioned? --24.173.222.94 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020

Please editǃ 14.199.204.191 (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)