From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Years (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


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


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. (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


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)

Off By One Year[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs), 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 (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.
-- (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.

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. (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)  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 " 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 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2019[edit]

"The next decade wil begin on January 1, 2021". ( NOT on January 1, 2020 ) The current millennium began on January 1, 2001.) (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[edit]

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)

Order for world leaders[edit]

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: @ 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)

'Notable world leaders'[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020[edit]

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

Wildfires and "non-natural disasters"[edit]

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)

Cybersecurity and Hacking question[edit]

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


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


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)

World leaders order[edit]

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)

Civil wars--Mexican drug war[edit]

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, 2006Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Thus, this non-war should be removed from the table. Michael E Nolan (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant[edit]

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)


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 7.5Mw , 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)


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
-- (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)


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[edit]

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

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[edit]

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

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

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

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

Cybersecurity and hacking section[edit]

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)

COVID-19 Pandemic numbers[edit]

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)

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

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

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[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]


  1. ^ The other plague: Locusts are devouring crops in East Africa and the Middle East Billions of hungry insects are threatening to cause famine amid the coronavirus pandemic. By Umair Irfan and Jen Kirby May 20, 2020.
  2. ^ Rolling emergency’ of locust swarms decimating Africa, Asia and Middle East]. Unseasonal rains have allowed desert pests to breed rapidly and spread across vast distances leaving devastation in their wake.Locust swarms threaten a “rolling emergency” that could endanger harvests and food security across parts of Africa and Asia for the rest of the year, experts warn. An initial infestation of locusts in December was expected to die out during the current dry season. But unseasonal rains have allowed several generations of locust to breed, resulting in new swarms forming. Huge swarms of locusts have been causing devastation across swathes of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Erratic weather conditions and storms have aided their path. As a result, countries have been battling the pests for months to avoid a hunger crisis.
  3. ^ Famine risk for millions in second locust wave. by Nelson Mandela Ogema , Fiona Broom, SciDev.Net, May 28, 2020.
  4. ^ Why are swarms of locusts invading the UAE and neighbouring countries? This is the biggest outbreak of locusts in 70 years. 27 May 2020, by Sarakshi Rai.
  5. ^ Locust swarms devour fields of crops in a single day that would feed 35,000 people — and COVID-19 threatens to make the pest problem even worse, Jessica Snouwaert May 19, 2020,
  6. ^ NOAA is lending technical support to the United Nations in its battle against a massive locust infestation that’s spread from Africa into the Middle East and Asia.NOAA’s assistance is helping officials control the spread of the pests, but the U.N. says new desert locust swarms are advancing into India, threatening food supplies there. Meanwhile, heavy rainfall and devastating flash flooding are hampering efforts to knock out the infestation for good. May 15, 2020.

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

The intro is too big already[edit]

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)

2020 China floods[edit]

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