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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

First time ever a disease in the US?

What makes the Wuhan coronavirus more significant than new diseases that are reported almost every year? There are 200 + countries all over the world, and millions of diseases everywhere, it is not necessary or even possible to include them all unless it is cause of a significant epidemic. It happening on the US for the first time is strictly a domestic event. Hepatitis C which is far more significant than this new disease was discovered in 1989, it is not listed on 1989, let alone mentioning the first case of it on the US. What makes this new disease more relevant than diseases with millions of death? The 2005 bird flue epidemic isnt even mentioned in 2005 article yet it had far more impact and news coverage (thanks to editors these day adding every single thing January 2020 already has the almost same amount of content of the entire 2005 year , at least according to wikipedia. Countless new type of diseases are reported every now and then, so what makes it so significant? It doesn't even have sufficient news coverage, but gets relevance here? Dilbaggg (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The disease itself is important to note as its now a global crisis. WHO mentioning it should be noted. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

While there have been more cases of the coronavirus in China than there were cases of SARS in 2003, the death toll for 2019-20 is much lower. WHO has been in talks with Chinese authorities, but has not yet declared an international emergency. Simply mentioning it is not the same thing. Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Dooms Day 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)