Talk:2020s/Archive 1

Kurzweil

"Futurist Ray Kurzweil puts 2029 as the year most likely for The Singularity" Well, in the 2040s-page, it says "One prediction (by Ray Kurzweil) places the emergence of the technological singularity in 2045.". If I'm not wrong, in each new book, Kurzweil has adjusted the time in which he believes the singularity will happen. Isn't 2029 a very old prediction? Ran4 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. The linked article on technological singularity also cites 2045.-- era (Talk | History) 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Optometrist joke

The sentence

It is predicted that optometrists will have a one year discount on all eyewear in 2020.

needs an award. Still, is this perhaps just a little bit too obscure?

That's been explained now. But seriously – who predicts it? -- Magnus Holmgren 18:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably it was inferred that in the year, "20 20", some optometrists is bound to have a discount, specific to that year. LutherVinci (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have more science fiction Predictions here, as it would be the decade that the great cyberpunks novels of the 1980s were set in144.139.143.152 15:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

--- DELETE Generation Y crap about ruling the world. This is pure speculation...and to say that Generation Y will rule the world until 2065?! Whoever wrote this obviously has an inferiority complex, and is from Gen Y.

Disney

2025 - Disney occurs to have last movies soon.

I was going to delete this since I have no idea what it means, but then i was thinking i might have something to do with copyrights expirign? can anyone make sense of this?mellery 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest deleting it. This sentence makes no sense as written. If certain copyrights are set to expire in 2025, they can (and perhaps should) be noted. But this sentence (as written) is nonsensical garbage. 66.17.118.207 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleted. --zenohockey 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Old vandalism discussion

The talk page contained some comments from 2006 regarding the restoration of the talk page from vandalism. I removed those comments after verifying that the vandalism was properly reverted. If you are historically inclined, see the diff.-- era (Talk | History) 20:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually you also need the original vandalism and the first (sort-of) attempt at cleaning it up in order for that to make sense.-- era (Talk | History) 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicicity

Is this page realy necicery i mean it will be 10 Years till the year 2020 and there isn't that much info anyway STAT- Verse 02:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

maybe you'll learn to spell :)

Astronomy Info

I find it hard to believe nothing notable in the skies will be happening through this decade. I suggest incorporating some astronomy events; eclipses and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.174.95 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17758-astronauts-could-reach-mars-in-2020s-panel-says.html - Looks like some scientists are aiming for a mars landing in the 2020's perhaps that could be included?

Redirects

I am creating redirects for months in the 2020s. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cliodynamics

Is cliodynamics an accepted discipline and is Peter Turchin a recognized expert? We have some inconclusive evidence for the latter, but none for the former. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

We have some of Ray Kurzweil's predictions in future articles. Although having significantly more acceptance than Peter Turchin, and transhumanism having significantly more coverage and acceptance than cliodynamics, I would accept removal of his predictions of technological singularity to restrict these articles to mainstream predictions, or, at least, to predictions covered in mainstream media. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are you answering yourself?

Cliodynamics is a predictive soft science just like any other concept in Futurology. Science requires predictions before it can be corroborated.

Might as well delete the nuttery from Ray Kurzweil, which has been completely falsified. Where's my flying car Ray promised me?

I deleted the reference to Cliodynamics. Maybe it's best to stick with predictions in hard sciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:940:C000:EDF:2DA6:B09C:6707:DF70 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2019

"The next decade wil begin on January 1, 2021". ( NOT on January 1, 2020 ) The current millennium began on January 1, 2001.) 178.196.17.143 (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. See above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Even though at this point it doesn't really matter anymore, you're wrong. The 3rd millennium began in 2001, but the 2000s millennium began in 2000. Both millennias are correct, neither is more superior. The 3rd millennium (2001–3000) is an ordinal millennium while 2000s millennium (2000–2999) is a cardinal millennium. WildEric19 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2019

The years are wrong on this. The Gregorian calendar starts at 1 A.D. (NOT 0), therefore the new decade starts on January 1, 2021. The Farmer's Almanac is correct, This article is disinformation. Malnourished (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See previous discussions on this page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Wildfires and "non-natural disasters"

The current Australian bushfire season is included in a list of "non-natural disasters." Is this an error? Jarble (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Y Done  Nixinova   T   C   21:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to propose reverting that edit, but be aware that there is a lot of sentiment both within Australia and internationally right now suggesting that the extreme scale of the current Australian bushfires can be blamed on climate change, and that the present Australian government's particularly aggressive anti-climate change/anti-science stance is at least partly responsible for them. It may not have been an accident nor a mistake that this item was initially put under the "Non-natural" heading. And please also note that I am not really making a political statement in the way I have described the government's position. They pretty proud of it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020

Add on the revolutions and major protests the lebanese revolution/ protests starting october 19,2019 and ongoing to change the system.

46.227.255.13 (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Y Done  Nixinova   T   C   23:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nixinova: It was removed, and the IP added a form which clearly violates both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, as it's unsourced. Could you go back and check what you added, and put in a clean version, if you think it still appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

'Notable world leaders'

What defines a 'notable' world leader?  Nixinova   T   C   03:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Any leader you can think of? Ythlev (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

What's about the Eternal President of the DPRK Kim Il Sung? And is Donald Trump going to be removed from the list if he is impeached?--Adûnâi (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(He was impeached)  Nixinova   T   C   20:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent question. There is a suggestion in the section above, which I have echoed, that we list leaders based on the country's GDP. I would define the term notable before listing them. We might even want to be specific in the title, e.g. 'Leaders of the 20 (50) largest countries'. Some would interpret that as 'by population', which is also acceptable to me.Michael E Nolan (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Cybersecurity and Hacking question

Is this category meant for significant cybersecurity events and company hacking? If so, would this be included under this subtopic? Thanks!

untitled

18:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitled.docx (talk • contribs)

Order for world leaders

There seems to be no consistent order for world leaders, which doesn't seem like a good idea. Any thoughts? Ythlev (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

From most notable to least notable I think is fine. Leaders that you hear about in the news frequently go to the top, leaders that nobody hears about in the news go to the bottom. But I believe that the current order is halfway incorrect. I think that US ally countries should go next to US leader Donald Trump since Wikipedia English is oriented to the United States and the United Kingdom. 2001:5B0:4BCD:FCC8:48B4:C99D:1516:E190 (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

leaders that nobody hears about How is that measured? Ythlev (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The order on this page is same as that on the 2010s page. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I know that. It is semi-arbitrary. Ythlev (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Any order other than alphabetical (or totally random?) will inevitably lead to non-neutral POV creeping in. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I think it can be formalised a bit. The current order seems to be UN Security Council permanent members, EU, Vatican, then the rest alphabetically. But Germany is out of place without a clear reason. I think a more sensible order would be GDP in descending order. Ythlev (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would support an alphabetical list, with perhaps the leader of the UN first. If we include the Pope, shouldn't we also include other religious leaders? The EU is a regional trade agreement; I don't think its leader should be included at all. If so, we should also include business leaders, which is likely to get out-of-hand. I like the idea of rating by GDP, but such a note should be included at the top of the article. I would further support the ranking by List of countries by GDP (nominal) rather than List of countries by GDP (PPP). The difference is important. It would also be less arbitrary than an alphabetical list.Michael E Nolan (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Counny: @83.20.28.231: Ythlev (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, there is no reason for Germany to be moved to the top. If it is moved for being "powerful", then so should nuclear weapon state India. If it's moved because Merkel is "notable", then so should Kim Jong-un. Ythlev (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Soleimani

Regarding Soleimani's death date, the article should go by local time as every article on him does, not UTC Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Earthquakes

According to the table in Earthquakes in 2020, there were 159 or so magnitude 7+ earthquakes in the 2010s. That would be far too many for a table in this article. I suggest making it magnitude 7.5 or 1000 deaths for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Michael E Nolan: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at earthquake pages by year, and I agree on the 7.5M_w , but I think 1,000 deaths is too high. How about 300? I'd like to see guidelines for other disasters also; the volcano in the Philippines cost 3 lives. And, do pandemics count as natural disasters? Michael E Nolan (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant

As tragic as Kobe Bryant's death was, it does not belong here since he was not an active athlete at the time of his death. Otherwise, we will have to note the death of every other former professional athlete. Michael E Nolan (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael E Nolan (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Economics

Shouldn't comments best be confined to reporting what happens, rather than speculations about what might happen in "an Uncertain Future"? I really don't see the point of including remarks, no matter what their source, dominated by the expressions "expected to", "set to", "probably" and "likely". Blurryman (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And this would surely apply more to the totally uncertain field of economics more than almost anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tamim bin Hamad Photo-2 (1).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

T-Mobile and Sprint

T-Mobile and Sprint have merged, relavant as of April 1st, 2020 --139.60.69.15 (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cybersecurity and hacking section

What exactly would be put in the "Cybersecurity and hacking" section of the article? Do I write about notable instances of cybersecurity and hacking breaches, such as the rise of online phishing due to the rise of coronavirus outbreak? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Official account President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

World leaders order

I think we should establish an official order to use in each article, because, for example, we cannot have the most powerful leader of the EU (Angela Merkel), in the middle of the gallery. I think we should insert in the top the Security Council's members (USA, UK, Russia, China and France) and then members of the G7 (Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada). Then I would add the Pope and the leaders of the EU Council and Commission. It is a questionable order, but at least it is an order, because as of now, the galleries have no sense. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Define "powerful". India and Pakistan have nukes. Ythlev (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, but Merkel is the de facto leader of the EU, or at least she was it during all the 2010s. Germany is a global power, why shouldn't be put in the top? -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That's an opinion. I just did an internet search for "Who is the leader of the EU?" and what came up was a list of the five presidents of five European Union institutions, none of which is currently Angela Merkel. - Blurryman (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think it's only an opinion, maybe you should edit her article: "Merkel has been widely described as the de facto leader of the European Union". -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between "has been widely described as", as in the article, and "is", as you originally wrote. All those unofficial titles applied to her are the comments and opinions of journalists and other media commentators, and of those whose opinions they are reporting upon. In democracies, "leaders" are elected by popular vote, not by journalists. Blurryman (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Nick.mon that there is a need for more specific criteria for ordering in each article, and I would go further and suggest that this one seems to reflect nothing more than the haphazard ranking by a single editor. Venezuela actually has two different leaders mentioned, which makes no sense at all. Nicolás Maduro's presidency may be in dispute, but Maduro controls the army and the presidential palace and is the de facto president. However, I digress. "Notable" should actually mean something, so I would rank the top 30 or so by List of countries by GDP (PPP). This would be: China, USA, India, Japan, Germany, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, UK, France, Mexico (or Italy), Italy (or Mexico), Turkey, South Korea, Spain (or Saudi Arabia), Canada (or Spain or Saudi Arabia), etc. (The exact number of countries and which of three charts, updated to 2020, to use, is open to discussion). I also think that a country's leader should remain even when he or she is no longer in office; the dates of leadership can be shown when there are two or more such leaders. If we include only the last leader, we negate Wikipedia's value as a source of historical information beyond today. Michael E Nolan (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, GDP can be a quite reliable criterion to list the leaders, even if we had to decide between GDP (nominal) or GDP (PPP). Anyway, INMHO, I'd consider also the UN Security Council and the G7, although the latter has greatly reduced its influence in recent years. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The current order and selection of names is an improvement. There is no doubt that all G7 (or G8) leaders should be included; I would extend it to the G20 (who are probably listed although I haven't checked, and who would be listed under GDP). Nicolás Maduro (Venezuela) does not belong at the end given the criteria listed in the footnote since he's been in office since 2013. We certainly should not include Juan Guaidó but we can add a footnote to Madero's listing. Michael E Nolan (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree, I sincerly don't know why they're in the list. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ythlev, you have already been blocked twice for edit warring, what about stop reverting and discussing about the order, here? We reached an agreement in February, you can't change the established order without discussing, just because "you never agreed to use G7"; the proposal was here, and reached a consensus, if you're against it, no problems, we can discuss, but by now, let's keep the previous established version :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

World Leaders Order

Why are the world leaders suddenly now arranged by country in alphabetical order? I believe the original ordering of them by notability/importance/power was better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's only better so long as we can all agree on notability/importance/power. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Because it was unagreeable. Ythlev (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

new material re current locusts incursion

I have just added the following material regarding a major swarm of locusts of international significance. I was not sure which section this should go in, so I placed this in the opening section of this entry.

Draft text: A huge swarm of locusts threatened to engulf massive portions of the Mideast, Africa and Asia. In tandem with the COvid-19 pandemic, this posed major hazards to billions of people who might be affected. Although experts had thought the insects would die out during the dry season in December 2019, unseasonal rains caused the incursion to reach unanticipated and hazardous levels.

References

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 Pandemic numbers

The unregistered editor (or editors) entering daily changes to this article is using the source cited in the COVID-19 pandemic article rather than the one currently cited in this article. While most of the numbers are similar, for some reason those for Spain are currently significantly different. It would make sense for both articles to use the same source. Are there any authoritative opinions on which is the better source to use? Both of them refer to the other as one of the sources for their data! --Blurryman (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A related question is whether this article should be a news feed for the very latest numbers, or whether we should leave less specific text like more than 300,000 deaths in place until the total reaches a higher round number. Certes (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The ongoing pandemic data will change, some countries will have more cases to surpass others, like the UK has more confirmed cases and a higher death toll now in July 2020 than Italy (back in March) and Spain (in May), all the top 12 countries in COVID-19 cases (the US, Brazil, India, Russia, Mexico, Peru, Chile, South Africa, the UK, Iran, Spain and Italy) surpassed China's where COVID-19 originated back in December. 2605:E000:100D:C571:A8BB:CE5:5FFF:7B6A (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Health

I'm glad to see the "Health" section, but I don't find including 2011 AIDS statistics useful. The Coronavirus has not yet been declared an epidemic and should not be listed as such. There needs to be clearly defined criteria for including such information, as in the case of earthquakes. Michael E Nolan (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus has not yet been declared an epidemic" Hahaha

--213.49.37.141 (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As of March 11th, the article stated the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic, due to surging number of cases in Jan and Feb in China, South Korea, Japan, throughout East Asia, first clusters in southern Europe (Italy and Spain), and the Northeastern and West Coast US at the time (NY state, IL, WA state and CA). 2605:E000:100D:C571:A8BB:CE5:5FFF:7B6A (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Off By One Year

The 2020's do not start until January 1, 2021. I know that culturally we often refer to the tenth year as part of the next decade (i.e. 1990 is part of the '90's, etc.) but that is technically incorrect. When grouping by tens, the tenth digit must be part of the grouping. You don't end at 9. Ask yourself how the first decade was counted. Did we stop at Year 9 and move to the next decade? No, the second decade started at Year 11. We did not start at Year 0, we started at Year 1.

This article should be corrected and all other references to the 2020's across Wikipedia should be adjusted as they all are wrong. January 1, 2020 is not the start of a new decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonaredding (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You've seemed to have mistaken centuries with decades, e.g. although the 21st century began in 2001, the 2000s began in 2000, so on and so forth. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually Dillon is correct. All decades of the Gregorian calendar begin with years ending in 1, and end with years ending in 0, since there was no year zero. Same convention applies to centuries and millennia. This page needs to be corrected. 0Core0 (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The only sensible meaning of the 2020s is those years with a 202 at the beginning, the ones that are called "Twenty Twenty something". All the pedantry about beginning on a year that ends in 1 is silly. That logic works for centuries, but not for this linguistic reality. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that logic works for years, decades, centuries, and millennia, because they are all numerically part of the same system where there is no year zero. Any year ending zero is the end of its grouping. And the correction was made because this is a repository for correct information, not subjectively 'sensible' information. If this entry covers a slang term for a decade, then it needs to disclose that. This simple concept results in pedantry because it seems to provoke others to be confidently wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.211.57 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a major difference. Centuries are numbered, or counted, from an obvious starting point, e.g. Nineteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-first, etc, so it's correct that this century is the Twenty-first, even though the first two digits say 20. Not the case when the actual names of the years are being used to identify a group of ten of them. We don't number or count such groups of years from a predefined starting point. The 2020s simply ARE the years that have a name of the form 202x. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"1800s" refers to the 1800-1899 period while the "19th century" refers to the 1801-1900 period. The "2020s" refers to the 2020-2029 period while the "203rd decade" refers to the 2021-2030 period

It's really not that complicated.

--62.235.125.162 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

2020s ≠ 203rd decade. The 2020s go from 2020 to 2029. The 203rd decade goes from 2021 to 2030. Likewise, the 2000s go from 2000 to 2099 while the 21st century go from 2001 to 2100. This article is titled the "2020s" so it turns from 2020 to 2029.  Nixinova  T  C  08:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the decade begins in 2021. A decade contains 10 years. All decades must contain 10 years. It is in the name “decade”. The first decade AD began in year 1. There was no year 0. Thus, for the first decade AD to have 10 years, it ran from 1 to 10. The second decade then started at year 11. Every decade starts with a year ending in 1. Otherwise, some decade is only a nonade.

https://www.farmersalmanac.com/new-decade-2020-or-2021-100900

kc (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a decade contains 10 years, and 2020-2029 is ten years, thus the 2020s is a decade.137.103.103.88 (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand how this is so hard to see: 1st year starts on 1 jan 0000 and ends on 31 dec 0000, 10th year ends on 31 dec 0010, 2000th year ends on 31 dec 2000, 2020th year (end of 202nd decade) ends on 31 dec 2020. Le us not mistake the layman saying of 20s with real arithmetics. The layman decade of 20s may start on 1 jan 2020s, but the 203rd decade starts on 1 jan 2021 Angel.marchev (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel.marchev (talk • contribs) 14:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is not about the 203rd decade. It's about the 2020s, which are years of the form 202x. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I propose the text "Note that the 202nd decade ends on 31 december 2020, but for convenience of saying '2020s', many use it as the begining of the 20s decade. This does not change the fact that 2020 is in fact the last year of 202nd decade." Angel.marchev (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel.marchev (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not know how there are editors who revert my changes in the page without ever reading what is written here. Obviuosly there might be only one correct position arithmentically - 31 dec 2020 is the end of the 202nd decade. BUT in light of good will I am proposing a s text which is keeping the convenience of the other option: "Note that the 202nd decade ends on 31 december 2020, but for convenience of saying '2020s', many use it as the begining of the 20s decade. This does not change the fact that 2020 is in fact the last year of 202nd decade."

This article is not about the 203rd decade. It's about the 2020s, which are years of the form 202x. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Can people please learn the different between cardinal and ordinal numbers? Cardinally this decade is 2020-2029 but ordinally it is 2021-2030. We go by cardinal when we say "the somethings" and ordinal when we say the "nth something". This article is in the category of "the somethings" so we use the cardinal range. Not difficult to understand.  Nixinova   T   C   21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

What people are missing is the definition of Wikipedia; it is not a repository of knowledge, but a mirror of society. The policy of authoritative sources only works when knowledge is a value. Guess what, the modern West is an idiocracy, and the second third decade of the 21st ct. CE now starts in 2020! I'm eagerly anticipating the moment when Upper Egypt will be considered the Delta...--Adûnâi (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point so drop the smugness. "21st century" is ordinal; "2020s" is cardinal. That's it. This article is not called "203rd decade" so it doesn't span 2021-2030.  Nixinova   T   C   03:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise, some decade is only a nonade. If you're referring to years 1–9 CE, yes that's a nonade. It's the "single-digit nonade". So what? We can't give a name to the years 2020–2029 just because the scheme doesn't apply to 1–9 CE? Ythlev (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Adûnâi - A simple way of looking at this is that the 2020s are those years of the form 202x, where the first three digits are "202", and x is any digit from 0 to 9. There isn't a linguistic rule that says a decade has to begin with a year that ends with a 1. I could speak of the first decade of my life. Everyone would understand what that means (though chances are very few would be interested). Yet I was born in a year that ends with an 8. It's still a decade. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

https://mashable.com/article/why-2019-is-the-end-of-the-decade-you-pedants.amp  Nixinova   T   C   03:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"Please shut up"?? Wow! How about no I won't shut up. We dont count years from 0 we count them from 1 hence 10th year (20,th 30th...) is the last year of a decade. And no mental gymnastics is gonna change that. --Nomad (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your logic applies to centuries, but not to decades. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Because you said so? :) --Nomad (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

We name centuries, e.g. 20th century. It began with 1901. No doubt about that. Your logic works there. But we don't name decades. Any bunch of ten years can be called a decade. As I wrote above, I can speak of the first decade of my life. That makes sense. But I was born in a year that ends with an 8. So it went until a year that ends in a 7. We can also talk about the 2020s. They are years of the form 202x. Twenty-twenty something. Simple choice of a period of ten years to talk about. This doesn't require a source. It's simply about the way we use language. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So according to your logic, an article for a year 2016 should also have a statement saying it's the first year of a decade that's gonna end with a year 2025? It's silly and you know it. But since Wikipedia is more about documenting what sources say as opposed to your or mine opinion, this statement could easily stay in the article as long as it's sourced, and maybe qualified ("according to this source..." and/or "...in USA" for example). However since you revert my edits asking for a source, borderlining edit war, and even revert my edits in your talk page, I am forced to ask for help from administrators. --Nomad (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomad, can you provide any source that the 2020s does not consist of the years from 2020 through 2029. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If and when I put such statement in the article it is gonna be sourced and if I fail to provide source you are free to add {{fact}} to it I am not gonna revert request for a source like a little child. And should I fail to provide a source in such hypothetical situation, you are also free to delete such statement, I am not gonna play revert wars like a little child. However in the current article there's no such statement so I dont have to provide any sources for a nonexistent statement. --Nomad (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Try WP:CALC and WP:Common knowledge. You are not going to find a published source that 2020 is divisible by 10, but it would not be a violation of WP:NOR to include the fact in any article. Similarly, you will not find sources for all of the 1710s started in 1710, the 1720s started in 1720, ..., through the 2090s starts in 2090. Perhaps we can find a source for some of them, and attach it to all decade articles. Also, there is a subtle difference between {{fact}} (which is absurd, here) and {{cn}}, which might, conceivably, not be intentional introduction of errors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Common knowledge where, in the United States? In my country we definitely don't count decades this way and so it's definitely not a common or any other kind of knowledge. Is this article about the US specifically? If yes it should be stated so, like I suggested, statement in question should be qualified and then of course sourced. If it's only the matter of using a different template I'm quite happy to use cn instead. But it looks to me your problem is not with the sort of template I was using but you just plain simply insist this statement should not be sourced period because you said so. Am I wrong? Shall I add cn and we are done with this issue? --Nomad (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomad wrote "So according to your logic, an article for a year 2016 should also have a statement saying it's the first year of a decade that's gonna end with a year 2025? It's silly and you know it." Yes, quite silly, starting with the fact that 2016 isn't a decade. So no, my logic does NOT extend to that ridiculous situation. I have a simple question for you - How can the year twenty-thirty be one of the twenty-twenties? Now, that would be silly, wouldn't it?. HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So much wrongess in this talk section is the result of why the Decade article had to be semi-protected. I want to be perfectly clear, and no offense but anyone who think 2020 is part of the 2010s is absurd, it's like disagreeing that the sky is blue. Let me be perfectly clear. As Nixinova pointed out, you're confusing the difference between the 2020s (2020–2029) and the 203rd decade (2021–2030), both of which have different time spans. It all comes down to Ordinal vs Cardinal, Wikipedia itself happens to use the cardinal system. I've seen another user reference Farmers' Almanac. Just because they said it doesn't make it true, I've read their side and it's incorrect. They asserted the only way to properly decades is to count from a year ending in 1 to a year ending in zero. The reason why that is wrong is because Cardinal decades do not function that way, it's counted differently and we have other reliable sources like Merriam-Webster agreeing that years ending in zero can be accepted as the start of a decade. I do not know anyone who disagrees that 1990 wasn't the first year of the '90s, because the 1990s is a cardinal decade and thus went from 1990 until 1999 was over. The issue with centuries is different, I almost never seen people using cardinal centuries. Popular culture often conflates the 18th century and 1700s as meaning the same time span (1700–1799) though others disagree - but centuries have no relevance because it's a different story/issue. My final comment is that: The 2020s is from 2020–2029, the 203rd decade is from 2021–2030. WildEric19 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• To judge the views of uninvolved editors, please see the discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Great quote at [1] (Dec 26, 20190): In about a week, a bunch of people are going to come out of the woodwork to say, "It's not the end of the decade!" Don't sleep with these people. You don't need that kind of pedant in your bed or on your floor. Or, I might add, in our encyclopedia. This is the kind of nonsense for which the word sophomoric was coined. (That would be a high school -- not college -- sophomore.)
  I hope these people don't go to work for the fire department. If someone reports a fire in the "600 block of Main Street" they'll start an argument on the subject while the city burns. EEng 03:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're having editing wars over when the decade began. It's called the 2020s. That means that years in this decade must be 202X. It's really simple and logical. I get the calendar argument that our calendar began in 1 AD, but nobody counts decades in the ordinal way. Yes, the 203rd decade is from 2021 to 2030, but nobody uses that system. We have always used the group of ten years with the same tens digit; it's logical and convenient. It's a different story when referring to centuries and millennia, but that logic is different than the logic of counting decades. I hope we can leave the date range of the decade alone, because arguing over this is silly and pointless. Herbfur (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Please, stop this discussion based on editors' reasoning. Whatever any editor thinks, however well reasoned, has no significance on the definition of this subject, per OR and SYNTH. Just like every other subject of every article in WP, we go by sources, only. If the great majority of sources say the 2020s begin this year, they we say they begin this year, period. If they say next year, then we say next year. If they say the 2020s begins in a fruit basket in Bozo the Clown's left nostril, then that's what we say. Sheesh. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be consistent with the way centuries and millennia are counted on Wikipedia. People also 'popularly believe' that 2000 was the beginning of the new millennium (Wikipedia lists 2001 as the beginning of the new millennium) and the 1900 etc. mark the beginnings of new centuries (again Wikipedia lists 1901 as the beginning of the 20th century), but like I just mentioned Wikipedia doesn't go along with that just because it's popularly believed and claimed to be the case. It makes absolutely no sense to have a decade system where the original decade only consists of 9 years, it's logically incoherent and also just incorrect, even if people popularly erroneously count the periods of time in these ways. All I'm asking for is consistency. Otherwise it's needlessly confusing and misleading for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.70.221 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 China floods

This is the biggest flood to have affected China in 70 years. It should be listed under natural disasters.213.115.109.100 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Attempted assassination

should we add Gretchen Whitmer to the list of attempted assassinations, since a recent plot to kidnap + assassinate her was uncovered by the CIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdoodlebop (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The intro is too big already

At this rate of addition, the article intro will have 80 paragraphs by 2030. MDaxo (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The locusts thing is a topical story and should not be in at all until there is a notable outcome. The two paragraphs above it could be trimmed; in particular, there is more detail about Covid-19 in the lead than there is in the body of the article, and in any case it has its own article. --Blurryman (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Decade articles should remain small when we're still early in the decade. It's not until nearing the end of the decade that we know which events stand out enough to define the decade. MDaxo (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. As the decade goes on, we will inevitably have to choose between bloating the lead, selectively cutting it down (best option), and having it only cover the first half of the first year (worst option). Glades12 (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Covid is not an important part of the 2020s. I would say that the development and use of robotics is more important. In the 1910s, the Flu Pandemic is hardly mentioned. Wallie (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

In the 1910s, the Flu Pandemic is hardly mentioned: hm, if only there was another extremely major event that overshadowed the flu pandemic.... Anyway I do think there should probably be at least a mention of spanish flu in that lead, and the pandemic is of obvious importance this time round due to the extreme disruption it has and will continue to cause for the start of this decade.  Nixinova   T   C   07:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I disagree with Covid-19 not being an important part of the 2020s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdoodlebop (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove Soleimani assassination from second paragraph

Having this assassination on the same line as covid is almost laughable. The sentence even says it fizzled out almost immediately. This event was barely notable a week after it happened, let alone being an "important event" in the span of an entire decade.  Nixinova   T   C   07:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on this one , I don’t think it has even been mentioned once from after it happened . Why was it put on there in the first place ? And stupid it being an important event since we are just 10 months into this entire decade . Loads of questions on this . Regards, KNOWKING4298 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Blurryman (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

Why is the pandemic given such high importance? In the 1910s decade article, the 1918 Flu Pandemic is hardly mentioned. That pandemic killed around 100 million people, whereas the recent pandemic has killed 1 million. Are the 2020 million people more important than the 2018 100 million people. Is it because most of the 100 million people were not Americans? Wallie (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's because some people treat this article as if it were a newspaper, so include current events which are high on the present-day news agenda. At one point, someone was updating the covid-19 numbers daily. I suspect the article will change as time moves on and other notable events occur. Blurryman (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh no, it's because literally nothing else has happened this decade  Nixinova   T   C   07:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Plus we have only been on this decade for just a 10 month time . KNOWKING4298<> (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Start of the COVID-19 pandemic

Recently, an editor changed the date of the COVID-19 Pandemic from "Ongoing" to "December 2019-present". I disagreed with the change and reverted it. The prior text was acceptable in my opinion, and the start of the pandemic is not immediately clear. Reliable sources disagree on when SARS-CoV-2 emerged, with some stating November 2019 , while others say December 2019 , which was when the WHO was informed of the illness. Some even say the virus emerged in October 2019 . While this disagreement continues, I propose that Wikipedia maintain the date of the COVID-19 Pandemic as simply "Ongoing". This is correct and avoids any dispute over start dates. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

We can only privately speculate why that editor felt so strongly as to reintroduce their changes eight whole times, but the edit war seems to be over. Since we don't know the month, but we definitely know the year, I went and changed it to read "2019 – present", like how HIV/AIDS is described right after. RoxySaunders (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know why they kept ignoring those warnings and requests for discussion, but I'm glad it's over. I'm fine with that change, it's definitely correct and backed by RS. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciations

The article states that there two different pronunciations of the years like the 2000s and 2010s. However, isn't it widely speculated that society will make the change to "twenty-twenty" by 2020? Adervae (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history of this page this has been removed and re-added multiple times. Removing it under speculation is just WP:CRYSTALBALL. With less than a year until the decade starts it is still widely used, and I cannot see it changing soon. --Voello _talk 10:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Keeping it also seems WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we should normalize "twenty twenties". Saying "two thousand twenties" is just wrong. It does not sound right at all, the correct way to pronounce "2020s" is twenty twenties. I've been hearing most people say "twenty twenty" for 2020 not two thousand twenty which is incorrect. --Georger20376 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Georger20376

As I see it, "two thousand and twenties" is an acceptable alternative used today to refer to the future decade of the 2020s. If in the decade itself this changes I would be happy for it to be removed. But at least as of 2019 many people do use this phraseology and whether people think it should or should not be used does not matter. --Voello _talk 00:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's grammatically incorrect in English though. The use of "and" when pronouncing a number in English signifies a decimal point. "2020" is correctly read as either "two-thousand twenty" or "twenty-twenty". "2000.20" would be "two thousand and twenty (hundredths), the "and" signifying the decimal. It's also inconsistent with prior usage. No English speaker would ever say "nineteen-hundred and twenties" for the 1920s. They would (almost) always say "nineteen twenties", but "nineteen-hundred twenties" would also technically be grammatically correct, though I've never heard anyone say that before. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Source? The number 1920 would be "one thousand, nine hundred AND twenty" in the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think people will stop pronouncing decades that way until the 2100s. For now, I hear people say both variations all the time, so both should be listed as correct. Chris6d (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. You don’t say and. And is used for a decimal point. If you fill out a check for say, $100.25, you would write one hundred dollars and twenty five cents. If you were born in 1974, would you say I was born in nineteen and seventy four? 2601:483:100:C2B0:9C1B:4AFD:7B16:65A0 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "nineteen hundred and seventy four" is a number, and I say "Wikipedia was made in two thousand and one". "And" does not imply a decimal point, it literally just means addition. I've never heard anyone say "five and fifty" to refer to ($)5.50 or whatever; in your example you didn't use "and" as a decimal point either. Nixinova   T   C   03:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I removed the "thousand and" pronunciation because looking at Google Trends there is a very obvious winner out of the three pronunciations. There is also this opinion article - is that a valid source?  Nixinova   T   C   22:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the first few days of 2020 now, and Google Trends seems to point to the most common pronunciations being "Twenties" and "New Twenties". It's still very early in the decade, though, so it would be wise to wait at least another few months before settling on a pronunciation. -Herbfur (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Between this thread and the off-by-one-year nonsense, this page has enough half-baked crankery for 50 articles. EEng 05:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That should be "50 and zero" articles. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the 'twenty twenty' pronunciation is pretty much the norm now, but it's not incorrect (yet) to say 'two thousand (and) twenty', and I still hear is on a somewhat regular basis. 97.113.111.90 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Google Trends graph linked to by Herbfur shows that the "two thousand" form is essentially nonexistent, so I'll remove it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The Google Trends stats are not really applicable. Trends is a brilliant tool for exploring change in the use of the written word, but here we are discussing pronunciation – the spoken word. The Trends stats are derived from their use in typed out search terms by users. We cannot imply the relative use of "twenty twenties" or "two thousand and twenties" in writing must correlate with their relative use in speech for pronouncing "2020s". (Especially considering how rarely ether is written out in full, compared to just "2020s"). Trends is just unable to show us how prevalent either pronunciation really is. --Voello _talk 04:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Among Us logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 storming of the United States Capitol

I wonder if it would make sense to add the 2021 Capitol Hill Storming. I get that there are many protests out there but this protest feels defining to what the situation of the USA is like: The rise of political polarization or political division. Can anybody tell me what to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiActic (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don’t already know that the article in question it has been added under the political events heading and under the americas table/box. Thanks,KNOWKING4298<> (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Collage of 2020

I think the collage at the top of the article belongs more on the page for 2020 than here. It will quickly become out of date, doesn't use the usual format for decade image compilations and has maybe a slight over focus on American culture and politics. Llewee (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's not suitable here, but it's more than a little US-centric, so it's not suitable for 2020 article either. --Blurryman (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Architecture section is empty

I've noticed that the architecture section is empty. I've already looked at some things that were built in the 2020s, I have narrowed it down to the Unity Tower, because it was under construction since 1975 and SoFi Stadium due to it being such a massie project and the fact that it is hosting an Olympics. Please let me know if you have suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaf8613 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Actors/Entertainers section

Should we introduce an actors and entertainers section? It would help with identifying some notable pepole from the decade without clogging sections which they would be placed in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.221.88 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary by the end of the decade the list has over 100 people that don't need to be in the article and it becomes a difficult task to clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaf8613 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Civil wars--Mexican drug war

The section on the Mexican drug war should be removed for several reasons. 1) Despite its name, this has never been a war, any more than Lyndon Johnson waged a War on poverty, Richard Nixon waged a War on drugs, or Donald Trump is waging a War on women. In fact, Mexican Drug War was a series of police actions (often assisted by the military) against hundreds of criminal groups who just as often fought among themselves. 2) President Felipe Calderon declared a "war on drugs" on December 10, 2006 Thus, this non-war should be removed from the table. Michael E Nolan (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Unlike the others you mention, the MDW is a low-intensity conflict, which we include. Jim Michael (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Earthquake inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for earthquakes and tsunamis are "earthquakes reported with 7.5Mw  or greater or that have reported at least 100 fatalities.".

I feel like this criteria is a little too broad, as the way it is worded now, the 2021 Kermadec Islands earthquakes (max magnitude 8.1), the New Caldenonia offshore earthquake (magnitude 7.7, doesn't have a Wikipedia page?), the 2021 West Sulawesi earthquake (magnitude 6.2, but over 100 fatalities), the 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake (magnitude 7.0, but over 100 fatalities), both Alaska peninsula earthquakes in 2020 (both magnitude over 7.5), and the Kuril Islands earthquake (magnitude 7.5) would be includable. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the list is going to grow quite big if we include every earthquake that is 7.5 or greater.

Since most of these earthquakes have a death toll of 0, do we think a better inclusion criteria should be achieved? I'm not sure how notable a lot of these are, even if they are strong, especially since one of the earthquakes doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Perhaps we could keep the 100+ deaths requirement but bump up the magnitude requirement to 8.0+? I'm not really sure. I think including earthquakes that get more news coverage than normal would be good but not sure how to go about figuring out how to include that.

-184.56.75.144 (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Collage

At this rate, the collage of pictures will be full before mid-decade, as too many recent events are being included. Apart from Covid-19, it's too early to know what else will be deemed relevant to include at the end of the decade:

- Capitol buildings attack: mainly relevant in the context of US domestic politics. These riots did not overturn the outcome of the elections nor prevented the start of Biden's Presidency. There will be 2 more US Presidential elections before the end of the decade, so many things can still happen.

- Wildfires: with 8 more years until 2030, there could be worse natural disasters that will deserve to be included

- Fall of Kabul: it's all over the news now, but its final inclusion will probably depend on whether Afghanistan will remain a prominent battlefield in the years to come

I agree, we're literally a year and a half in the decade, and we have 9 or so years left until 2030; who knows what will happen during that time. The collage is way, way too early to be included. Kaisersauce1 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It is far too premature. A discussion concerning what images should go into the collage should start at the end of 2029. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Two of the topics are largely irrelevant outside the US. Ythlev (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think the Haiti earthquake isn't major enough to warrant an inclusion in the collage. The Black Lives Matter movement's significance throughout the rest of the decade is to be determined. The wildfires I don't think should be included, there's not even a decade-wide article to direct to. The Fall of Kabul and the January 6 attack's significance are yet to be seen, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were included later to symbolize the political instability in both regions depending on how this decade goes. But I think it's reasonable to assume that the COVID-19 pandemic will have a lasting impact on the decade, so that should certainly stay. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

All this talk about it being too premature, or the significance and impact of these events not being fully realized yet is completely irrelevant. Of course it's too early to know what the exact impact will be or which of these events will have the most relevance by the end of the decade, that's how the concept of time works. This collage will undoubtedly change as the decade progresses, no one is arguing the content's permanence, and by/after the end of the decade, a semi-permanent collage will be uploaded after much debate and discussion, and the importance of such events will be better known at that time. Until then though, a gradually-changing collage should remain and debate and discussion of which pictures will be included should be welcomed. That/this collage should include the most currently-relevant and important global events of the last two years (ie, not what we predict will be most relevant come decade-end, but what is most relevant NOW). As it stands today, I think what we had was pretty good except for the Haiti earthquake. I could see that image being replaced with something like this one: [ File:1 july 2020 implementation Hong Kong Law streets in Causeway Bay.jpg ] showing a 'Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time' banner – "the most resonant slogan of its protest movement" – in violation of the newly passed law, which is part of the broader 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, a very globally significant event of the decade (right now that is). Flyedit32 (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We have precedence in this matter, in that the collage for 2010s was not made until the end of 2019 or thereabouts. Despite what you have written I do not understand the argument for having one right now. The collage should not represent what it relevant right now, as in the last two years, but rather what will be relevant in 2029. If a collage really is necessary for the events of the last two years why not put them in the respective year pages, though that has never been done and I am not sure if I would agree with that. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

We know that decades are typically characterized in hindsight. We can't really predict what the decade will be noted for right now, since we're not even 2 years into the decade. The only event we are sure for (almost) absolute certainty will be characteristic of the decade is the COVID-19 pandemic. All other images should be removed, and new images should not be added unless a) it's towards the end of the decade or b) there is an absolutely world-shattering event (e.g. WW3). I would also like to note that collages are almost added with community consensus formed beforehand (see the 2010s talk page). ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead is an absolute mess. Why, out of all the topics that could be included, does it specifically have the COVID-19 pandemic, the private space race, the War in Afghanistan, the Uyghur genocide, the Philippine drug war, and Black Lives Matter? There's no real reason, individual editors just dropped by and added what they thought was important without regard for consensus. You could argue that some of these should be included, but let's remember we're not even 2 years into the decade, it's really difficult to make a determination of what defines the decade so far. Most of these things are really just continuations of things that mainly happened in the 2010s. When I've tried to remove specific things in the past (private space race), it was just reverted, so I thought removing the lead altogether would make sense to avoid bias, including my own.

If people really think a lead is worth having, I think it makes to stick to a single paragraph. In terms of precedent, the 2010s lead at this time 10 years ago included the Global Financial Crisis and Arab Spring. That's it. Comparable to that significance this decade is the COVID-19 pandemic, and maybe the Fall of Kabul marking end of the 20-year War in Afghanistan. Pinging @Flyedit32 and @Corinal. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 00:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly agree with everything you said Corinald (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for having just a single paragraph summarizing the most notable events of the decade so far (however lengthy and substantial we feel that paragraph should be), like this time last decade. So let's work on that. But there shouldn't just be no lead. Flyedit32 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure but aside from the pandemic nothing clearly reaches the level of importance of the financial crisis or arab spring Corinal (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. What do we think of this: The 2020s began in the midst of the initial rapid spread of a novel coronavirus, a global economic recession, and massive wildfires in Australia and the Western United States. Protests in the early 2020s, including those in Hong Kong against anti-democratic legislation and others around the world against racism and police brutality became an international phenomenon. The private space race also greatly accelerated in the early 2020s, as did other military conflicts such as the Israel–Palestine crisis and a Taliban offensive on the city of Kabul, which marked the end of the 20-year War in Afghanistan and a return to that country being an Islamic emirate. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps some of that may work but i think some of those are not sufficiently notable.

The recession seems fair enough, i just considered it part of the pandemic but it seems fair to mention it separately.

However i don't see how the wildfires meet the same notability nor the private space race. They may be somewhat notable but I think its fairly clear they are a lot less notable than the other things mentioned

The protests might be fair if mentioned as a whole (i.e protests around the world) rather than listing many (but not all) individually especially since what protests are sufficiently notable seems very subject to individual editor bias (especially geographic bias).

The fall of Kabul was one of the things left there after the edit along with the pandemic and I think its decently fair to say it is notable but i just meant its not *clearly* reaching that level of notability in the same way the pandemic does.

The fighting in Israel and Palestine is fairly notable but again i don't think that crisis on its own, meets that same level of notability. Perhaps it can be grouped in with a general escalation of tensions worldwide but listing individual ones which are not obviously notable enough (i.e afghanistan) is subject to the same problem as with the protests, though I'm not sure how exactly this would be done so didn't include it in my suggestion below.

What about something like, The 2020s began with the COVID-19 pandemic and a global economic recession, Protests grew worldwide in over (number of countries which had significant protests in the early 2020s). While the Taliban offensive on the city of Kabul, marked the end of the 20-year War in Afghanistan and a return to that country being an Islamic emirate.

Corinal (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd like others to join in first and give their suggestions. I think we're just going to have a fundamental disagreement on what makes something a globally "notable" event or not, and how concise this lead absolutely has to be (I don't feel it only needs to be a sentence, or two, but rather an actual and substantial single lead-"paragraph"). I also have strong reservations on the syntax and structure of what you laid out (it's sloppy). But I do appreciate the feedback, so let's just wait for others to contribute before making a final decision. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that fair, and i do agree my writing may be a bit sloppy so I'd love if you had a suggestion similar but with less sloppy writing, also you told me to wait for consensus when replacing it on the article, but you did no such thing, at least revert it to what it was originally if your gonna tell me to do that Corinal (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears a user has tried to change the lead *again* without even saying one thing on the talk page, please discuss here about it before making changes, and read what i said earlier to understand my view (and agreement that improvements can be made) Corinal (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Following your logic, nothing should be written about the 2020s until 1 January 2030. The lead is fine. It more than complies with WP:MOSLEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE, and WP:SIGCOV. As the decade progresses, the lead can be updated to add or subtract content. I'm not sure why this is even an issue. But I'm done. Yall can edit-war it out. It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Sallicio here. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

ugh im done this with, I have no clue what you mean with "following your logic nothing should be written about the 2020s until 2030" That's not the case at all. I'm not sure why you two insist on that specific edit and clearly have no interest in improving it in anyway but I have better things to do with my life Corinal (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

""Prominent political events"

2021 German general elections and end of Angela Merkel in Chancelorship is a major political event. Add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditingIsMyHobby (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Counting years

Count the years of the decade, And tell your opinions on when it starts, And when it ends. Aidenless (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is about years of the form 202x. The debate about when a decade formerly begins doesn't apply here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aidenless: Just going to copy this text from decade:

The most widely used method for denominating decades is to group years based on their shared tens digit, from a year ending in a 0 to a year ending in a 9 – for example, the period from 1960 to 1969 is the 1960s, and the period from 1990 to 1999 is the 1990s. Sometimes, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties, and 90s or nineties), although this may leave it ambiguous as to which century is meant. However, this method of grouping decades cannot be applied to the decade immediately preceding AD 10, because there was no year 0.

Particularly in the 20th century, 0-to-9 decades came to be referred to with associated nicknames, such as the "Swinging Sixties" (1960s), the "Warring Forties" (1940s) and the "Roaring Twenties" (1920s). This practice is occasionally also applied to decades of earlier centuries; for example, referencing the 1890s as the "Gay Nineties" or "Naughty Nineties".

Usage methods compared

Year	1	2	3	...	9	10	11	12	...	19	20	...	2000	2001	2002	...	2009	2010	2011	2012	...	2019	2020	2021	2022	...	2029	2030
0-to-9 decade	0s					10s					...		2000s					2010s					2020s					...
1-to-0 decade	1st decade of the 1st century						2nd decade of the 1st century					...		1st decade of the 21st century					2nd decade of the 21st century					3rd decade of the 21st century

Koopinator (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

HiLo48, I wanted to make it a debate about when it begins and ends and another one about counting the years of the decade, but i did not find any other sort of word to show that its not just for counting that's why i named it 'counting years'. Aidenless (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aidenless: You need to make it clearer what you see as a problem which requires discussion. --Blurryman (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see the problem. The name of the article simply means years that have the form 202x. When decades start is irrelevant. If the article had a name like "Third Decade of the 21st Century", that could lead to the opening of several Pandora's cans of worms, but it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

add head of governments and other rulers to deaths section?

I added several deaths of heads of states so far, but was wondering if the heads of governments and others would be included as well. I wanted to ask first before moving forward with it. Thank you for your response. Losipov (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What sport?

Under Sports for 2021, we have "Tampa Bay Lightning win second of back-to-back titles and third championship overall, defeating the Montreal Canadiens in a five game series." This editor, who is not from North America, has no idea what sport they were playing. I'm sure there will be many others like me. Can someone please add that information? HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. --Blurryman (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion/Russo-Ukranian War in lead

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and/or the broader Russo-Ukranian War that will result deserve to have a specific call out in the lead similar to the end of the Afghan War. Things are just starting and of course it will take time for the ultimate result to become clear, but it will undoubtedly be one of the biggest geopolitical events of this decade. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of group resource

I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.

We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.

to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The emergence of AI in multimedia, including DALL-E 2 and VQGAN+CLIP, should be mentioned in technology or arts

Started in January 2021 with the release of CLIP and increasing in popularity ever since. Completely separate from NFT and a major technological artistic advancement that was absent from the 2010s yet heavily built upon privately until this decade. 47.205.69.71 (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Too many images in the culture section

Hello, I have noticed that there are to many images in the Culture section. Seeing as how we are on 2 years into the decade, and as the decade progresses. Do I have approval to delete some of the images?

Leaf8613 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Leaf8613

Definitely agree, it is already close to surpassing the amount of images in the 2000s and 2010s pages. Regarding which to delete at this point, I think 5 singers being featured is a bit much, and I think some could be combined, like the 2 video game consoles could be represented by one image and HBO max/squid game could be combined into one representing streaming platforms more generally. Also are vaccines that much of a cultural phenomenon as much as they are a scientific one? I agree masks should be included for their overt social impact but the vaccine is a bit different I feel. Yeoutie (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted a whole bunch of images. It had to be done. There is simply to many images in that section this early on in the decade, and since I know that more well be added as the years go its only natural that some had to be taken down to keep it neat and prevent it from just being an image dump with peoples personal interests. Leaf8613 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding on, a lot of the images I took down can be added in their own respective sections (EX;Squid Games can go into the televsion section, it doesnt need an image or Best selling Video Games go in the Video Games/Electronics section). Leaf8613 (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Literature section needs reworking

Several sentences in the literature section are very poorly written and make little sense.

e.g the opening sentence 'Literature in 2020s has also increased in popularity in the decade as both of these years and time flies by.' but pretty much every sentence in this section is similarly poor.

2001:44B8:110A:D900:5A85:DDE8:1347:FF28 (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Criteria for Assassinations

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

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

Sport

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

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

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

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

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