Jump to content

Talk:2020/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Wait a minute

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

hello answer me --24.173.222.94 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Some possible answers:

  1. Do you mean the West Coast of the United States?
  2. They aren't included because no one has asked for them to be included.
  3. They aren't included because no one had made a case for them being of international significance.
  4. They aren't included because no one has provided a citation. Deb (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

The worldwide death toll from COVID-19 exceeds one million. (BBC) 29th of september 2020 Freedom.to.distribute.information (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding a brief note on the White House superspreading event

I'm not sure how it couldn't be noteworthy enough to have at least a brief mention on this outbreak (of which the Trump family is now only one small part of) in here. I know it's a "domestic event" in the US, but this page is (rightfully so) filled with other domestic events that are notable enough. How is this event of all events not newsworthy enough? It's completely destabilising the US federal government as we speak. Adding something quick like this makes sense, given the serious global ramifications this event is having: "October 1: A major superspreading event of COVID-19 is reported, affecting many political figures and multiple branches of the United States federal government." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJhops (talk • contribs) 07:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, as stated in the note on the page, other world leaders of prominent countries have contracted the coronavirus. Boris Johnson himself was placed in intensive care at one stage due to the effects of the virus, which had a serious impact on the British Government and also saw several other members of his administration test positive. None of these events were deemed internationally relevant enough to be included on the main 2020 page, and have instead been confined to their respective "Year in Topic" pages. I just don't see why the American case should be treated any differently - it would be a different story if Trump were to pass away from COVID-19. But if the exact same circumstances were to fall upon virtually any other government, they would barely be given a look-in to being added to the main page. As of now it remains a domestic American political issue that should remain in 2020 in the United States. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. We've recently had a superspreader event in Wales which has affected our country's approach to lockdown. If Trump dies, then it will be newsworthy. Deb (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is not only about Trump getting COVID now. It has grown to a very different level compared to Boris Johnson or Jair Bolsonaro's diagnosis-- this is affecting dozens of powerful political figures in one fell swoop. The implications stretch far beyond even that now-- to derailing the US's election, to their latest Supreme Court nomination, etc. I certainly think that if this exact situation had occurred to any other government, it likely would merit inclusion as well (unless perhaps it happened to a very small and obscure nation). For example-- if New Caledonia's latest independence referendum merits inclusion, then how can one seriously argue that this superpsreader outbreak is not at least equally important to the average (non-American) person? Is anyone going to seriously argue that it is not? TheJhops (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

With an event like this, we would normally wait to see how things pan out before adding it. There's a lack of clarity about the circumstances and about Trump's diagnosis. If, for example, a leading politician dies as a result, it will definitely be appropriate to talk about the super-spreader event. If no one becomes seriously ill, we should wait until the fuss blows over and we know what really happened. Deb (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well on that note, the American President is now on a multi-day hospital visit, in what many media outlets are calling "the most serious health crisis to affect a president since Ronald Reagan's attempted assassination." Besides that, the amount of disruption this has triggered across that government is huge, and beyond anything it has dealt with (in a personal and personnel level) in at least a very long time. The briefest Googling will confirm all of this for you. Again, how on Earth could this therefore not be notable enough? TheJhops (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

At this stage Trump's condition is mild and stable and he is in hospital as a precautionary measure. In fact as recently as two hours ago, Trump released a video saying how much better he's already feeling. Anything else at this stage to do with his health is merely hypothetical. Boris Johnson by comparison was in intensive care for several days and senior ministers were seriously contemplating the very real possibility of his death. So far none of the members of Trump's Cabinet have tested positive - nor has the most senior Republican members of Congress or the Vice President. Britain's own *Health Secretary* tested positive and was impacted by the virus. The majority of cases so far in the American event have been among Trump's campaign team and members of his personal staff - the latter of which also applied to both Johnson's and Jair Bolsonaro's staff. Factors such as the Supreme Court have zero relevance outside of the United States. So far none of this changes the fact that if *precisely* the same circumstances that is impacting the United States right now were to take place in most, if not any other countries, I just don't see anyone attempting to add this anywhere other than Year in Topic like a few editors have been with this so far. We're not going to have one rule regarding American related events, and another for everywhere else. Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, it is irrelevant that this is an American event. If this exact same event were happening in any other country, I would agree just as strongly that it should be included. Again, if the 2020 New Caledonian Independence Referendum is notable enough to include in this article, then this topic obviously meets the standard also. It is baffling that you are blind to how this is not as newsworthy as an event like that. I'm Canadian-- if Justin Trudeau was at the epicentre of a superspreading event that was taking out large sections of the Canadian government & Parliament and greatly impairing both institutions, it would clearly be worth mentioning briefly in here as well. Trump's own prognosis is irrelevant-- the COVID-19 contagion has spread so widely here, it's ramifications are extremely newsworthy and are only just beginning. TheJhops (talk) 03:06, October 2020 (UTC)

Surely it's not the fact that he has tested positive that is significant, it's the impact on the US government. And as yet, we don't know what that is - or even if there is one. If, for example, the election ended up being delayed, or even if Trump died and there was a smooth transition to Pence, then I would agree there should be something in the events section. But none of that has happened yet. As you say, it's "only just beginning", so it's the wrong time to add it. Deb (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removals

Here are some more names that have been added and whose international significance seems limited:

Any thoughts? Deb (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am most strongly in favour of retaining Tim Brooke-Taylor, given that he achieved widespread fame (at least in the Anglosphere.... and outside the United States) as a member of The Goodies. I haven't even seen anything The Goodies have done, but am well aware of them and recognise them as one of the most famous comedy troupes along with Monty Python. I would also lean towards being in favour of retaining Tony Allen, Lee Konitz and Nobuhiko Obayashi. Maybe Ron Tauranac as well, given the importance he had in his field of work, though a little on the fence with him. I've loved Sam Lloyd in everything he's been in, and think he was a hilarious actor. Which makes it a shame that I have to agree that he's not notable enough for inclusion - certainly nowhere near as notable as his uncle Christopher Lloyd.

I would also throw the following into consideration for removal, many of whom have at least one point had the importance tag added to their entries:

Thoughts on these as well? Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jacques Beurlet definitely needs to come out - three-line article and three international caps?
Wálter Machado da Silva is less obvious but only six international caps so I agree he should go.
Out of the others, the only ones I'm not sure about are Redstone, Jaworski and Davis. Deb (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep Andy Gill - we had this discussion previously, his death had worldwide coverage as his band (and notably Gill's guitar playing) were very influential - he also had obits in the New York Times, Telegraph, BBC and Times (and Rolling Stone), which would be strange for a "minor British musician". Mac Davis had NYT, Wapo, BBC and Times obits so I'd be tempted to keep him as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we have discussed Andy Gill previously. Is "influential" the same as well-known? Deb (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I would argue "influential" is at least as important as well-known, particularly given that in a lot of cases they achieve mainstream recognition and notability posthumously. As far as Andy Gill goes, I'm on the fence - not really bothered with his retention or removal. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that "influential" - backed up with reliable sources, as in this case, is even more important than "well-known". Many "well-known" people are only such in their own spheres of relevance - I could mention a number of actors, for example, that are household names in their own country but completely unknown outside it. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Add to this Derek Mahon, just recently added. Deb (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC) And Mike Sexton has just been added - I don't believe he has significant international notabiliy. What do others think? Deb (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Deb, can you please wait before yours massive deletions until a consensus is reached? Thank You. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm doing. You haven't yet contributed to the discussion. Deb (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
No, you don't. You just wait a while and, when you see that no one has said anything, you decide to delete because you think so. And I wish I had a lot of free time to focus on analyzing one by one, but I think you should be the one to demonstrate why they should not be there. Good afternoon. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
They have said that they don't believe them to be notable enough. Two other users, including myself, have looked at it and (with a few exceptions) agreed. All you need to do is say which removals you disagree with, and why. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Add death

Hello, can you please add a death of a braziliam celeb "zuza homem de melo"? His already have a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.145.205.80 (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC) 

He was a musicologist, writer and journalist. One of the greatest researchers of brazilian music.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.145.205.80 (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Can't find an article for him. He needs to be internationally notable, and you also need to provide a citation. Deb (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Scientific Breakthroughs

On 15 of Oct i.e. yesterday we have achieved the record for superconductivity at room temperatures, at about 15°c. This is in fact one the biggest breakthroughs in science. All my science buddies here would know for sure? Here is a link: https://www.techexplorist.com/world-first-room-temperature-superconductor/35751/ Uddhav9 (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

International goals section?

Is this standard? Prototyperspective added a whole new, and long, section on international goals but of all the other Year in Country pages I've seen, this section is not included. If an international goal is notable enough for this page, then it should be with the rest of the events, in the events section. Dan the Animator 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Such a section hasn't been included in articles about earlier years – maybe I should have made a talk page entry first before adding it. They did not include such a section – imo partly because there weren't many notable international goals due by these years: 2020 is basically the first year with many such goals – the SDGs in particular mainly.
I think it's highly notable and that there's much data/reports that would support the claim that information is highly notable for both contemporary as well as readers in the future interested in world history of the year. The section included goals which basically humanity, or a notably large of it, agreed to, hoped for, is affected by or worked for in terms of the proactive shaping of world history. Future readers could be interested in what those goals were, how they were created and to what extent they have been achieved – and possibly even more so than in many of the entries in the current Events section.
It could go into the Events section. It wouldn't need to become standard content of the years-articles if we include it for 2020 – it would depend on how many notable goals there are for years that aren't the end/start of decades – there are already many goals for 2030 and I'd suggest discussing/reassessing whether or not to include such content for the next year as 2021 goes.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
In fact such a section already exists for the article about 2030: 2030#Set goals. However, there is no information about the achievement status of the goals obviously and hence there is no use of a 3- or 4-column table. The current suggested table-layout could be changed so that e.g. the borders are invisible or the background isn't grey.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Prototyperspective I see your point but that doesn't justify the creation of a new section for year pages. All year pages (up to a certain year, after that there's a different format) have or should have the same formatting. If a new section is going to be added to Year pages, then it should be applicable to more than 1, or a few, years. If 2020 is the first year to have this many notable goals, then I recommend making a separate page for it, like a International Goals for 2020 page. Dan the Animator 20:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea in the first place; it lends itself to attracting trivia without clear criteria on how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator It was intended to be an addition to the standard format (starting with 2020) that may not be used for all years. It is already applicable to 2 years (2020 and 2030) - probably even three (2025). And maybe there will also be sufficient goals for such a section in 2021 and succeeding years. I outlined above why I think that it should not be a separate page but be included right here - it's not that much content either and highly relevant.
Prototyperspective The proper formatting for the 2020 page should be the same as those before it, meaning every year page starting at 1902. The Year pages for 2029 and above follow a different, temporary formatting as they should. For this section addition to be possible, I would expect at least 30 pages of the 1902-2020 pages to be able to have it as well. I think you should just make a separate page for it or add it to an existing Year in Topic page (maybe the 2020 in politics and government page?). Dan the Animator 23:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Drmies There could be clear criteria. I don't think it would attract much trivia and such could be removed. It works good enough for the Events section the same way.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"Events" have a more easily objectively measured importance; "goals" do not. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Could more people please comment on this? I think such goals are important for an article that's an overview of a year in terms of worldwide notability.
Here is how the section looked like before it was removed.
""Events" have a more easily objectively measured importance; "goals" do not" is a good point – however, I think there's measurable a) sufficient reporting b) sufficient public interest c) sufficient authoritative / government attention and d) sufficient notability ascribed to these goals by relevant experts that warrants inclusion in this article via a new section or subsection.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't see any value in adding subjective content like this. Deb (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not subjective or not more subjective than the "Events" section (i.e. most of its items). See points a) - d) about objective measures about notability. Further points about the value of such content can be found in my first reply here above. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Did you think I hadn't already read that before giving my opinion? Deb (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that you didn't address it.
(Furthermore I couldn't know that and have pointed it out not just for you but also for others who may read this, some of whom may be interested in joining this discussion.) --Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Prototyperspective that something about the SDGs ought to be added for the year 2020 - it's the 5-year mark of the Sustainable Development Goals which span a 15 year period. But I can also see the drawback of adding a new section ("goals") that would only be there for some years. Could we put it under "Predicted and scheduled events", perhaps with its own sub-heading there? Also, can we mention somewhere that 2020 marks 75 years of the founding of the UN? There is a writing event taking place next week for that. Maybe discussion further options with the participants of that event? See here. EMsmile (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
See also related discussion here on the talk page of the SDG article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_Development_Goals#Adding_information_about_the_content_and_state_of_the_SDGs_in_articles_about_years_(e.g._2020) EMsmile (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removals from Deaths section

I propose to remove the following on grounds of their limited international notability. Please indicate agreement or disagreement.

  • Günter de Bruyn, German writer, no Year in Topic listings (removed)
  • Marián Čišovský, Slovak footballer, small number of international caps (removed)
  • Pau Donés, Spanish singer (hasn't even been recorded in "Year in Spain")
  • Kamala (wrestler), US wrestler - what makes him stand out among all the other US wrestlers? (removed)
  • Park Won-soon, South Korean politician mainly notable as a sex offender
  • Georg Ratzinger, notable mainly for being the Pope's brother (removed)

There'll be more. Deb (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Park Won-soon isn't mainly notable as a sex offender, he's notable for being the mayor of the capital of South Korea, a city bigger than London or New York, for the last nine years! Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pau Donés isn't in 2020 in Spain simply because it hasn't been updated since 26 May and he died two weeks later. The lead singer of a band with at least three multiple-platinum albums, and nominated for a Grammy. A 2-minute trawl for online obituaries finds quite a few outside Spain, including Billboard and NBC. Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I understand that, but we have plenty of Spanish editors, who obviously weren't impressed enough to make the updates. I'm hampered at the moment by a bug that is preventing me seeing the interwiki links. They say it'll be fixed by Thursday. Deb (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with removing all of these. Just on the point regarding Park Won-soon, yes he was Mayor of Seoul, but unless they gain special international notability or significance I strongly believe that any mayor should be confined to Year in Topic, regardless of which city they happen to be from. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Mmm. I think we would include a former long-standing mayor of, say, London or New York. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
We have done in the past, but it depends on a lot of things. Deb (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

More suggestions:

  • Jörn Donner - Finnish film director, notability seems based on an executive role (removed)
  • Ronald Graham - mathematician, obviously has some notability but is it enough to merit him being here? (removed)
  • Nikolai Kapustin, Russian jazz pianist and composer - apparently moderately well-known in jazz circles but is he really internationally notable? (removed)
  • Inna Makarova - Russian actress, notability seems to be based on family connections (removed)
  • Zindzi Mandela - famous in her own right? (removed)
  • Ken Shimura - Japanese comedian; not sure why he's in this list (removed)

Thoughts? Deb (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

change the line of November 7 saying that Joe Biden has been elected as the president to saying that he is currently believed to win, this is because he has not won yet due to the function of the US election system. 66.4.15.212 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The information in the article is well-sourced. Without a prior consensus in support, I see no clear reason under Wikipedia policy to make the requested change. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

Maybe you can add the france terror attacks on the Teacher paty and the stabbings in Nice as they are seen as important news in Europe and West Asia Also the End SARS demonstrations in Nigeria and the Earthquake in the Eagean sea. All these events happened in october 2020. Freedom.to.distribute.information (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be more appreciated on the 2020 in France article the France terror attacks on the teacher if it haven’t . But I don’t know about the bottom events . Regards,KNOWKING4298<> (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake was a significant international event which in the article. The others are national events, so they shouldn't be. Jim Michael (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The terrorist attacks in France did end up having some geopolitical significance, not so much due to the attacks themselves, but the rising tension between France and Turkey, or specifically Macron and much of the Muslim world. Much of the world got confused about why Macron reacted so strongly, supposedly because they do not understand France's concept of "laïcité". So anyway, I would argue it is significant, but on the other hand this is not something that happened on a single day, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to be written; I don't have experience with these kinds of articles myself. A few sources though: Washington Post (Macron vs Erdogan just before the attacks), The Guardian (right after both attacks). Sygmoral (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Further proposed removals

  • Marcello Abbado, Italian musician, best known for being Claudio's brother (removed)
  • Basu Chatterjee, Indian filmmaker, seems relatively minor (removed)
  • Jimmy Cobb, US jazz drummer, seems to be notable mainly by association with better-known performers (removed)
  • Abdelmalek Droukdel, minor Algerian terrorist leader (removed)
  • Hana Kimura, Japanese female wrestler, doesn't seem to be anything special about her (removed)
  • Miljan Mrdaković, Serbian footballer, played with many clubs but his international career was very short (removed)
  • Lennie Niehaus, US jazz musician, seems to be notable mainly by association with better-known performers (removed)
  • Gary Peacock, US jazz musician, seems to be notable mainly by association with better-known performers (removed)
  • Amfilohije Radović, Serbian church leader (removed)
  • Wallace Roney, US jazz trumpeter, seems to be notable mainly by association with better-known performers (removed)

Please comment. Deb (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Out of all of these, Jimmy Cobb is one that I think should be retained - internationally renowned drummer and last surviving member of the Kind of Blue sessions. The others I have no objections to removing. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. By a weird coincidence, was listening to that last night. Or maybe not a coincidence... Deb (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions

I propose to remove John Sessions (done) and Nathan Zach, neither of whom is exactly a household name. Deb (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

They announced the decommissioning of the Arecibo telescope on 19 November. I think this is an important event. Here is the source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03270-9

136.49.255.70 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why it is important. Deb (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

second paragraph seems totally unimportant : WP:NOTE

""" The United Nations has declared 2020 as the International Year of Plant Health.[1] 2020 has been designated as Year of the Nurse and Midwife by the World Health Organization.[2] """ Ok and? I think this should be removed. It contrasts strongly with the third paragraph about COVID19 which seems laughably much more important and while I was reading this I stopped what I was doing just trying to figure out why International Year of Plant Health should be mentioned before COVID19 is.

I think a resolution would be to move it below the COVID19 section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.109.249 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Misleading language on June 1

Hello, this is a small detail but the wording makes it very misleading. Under June 1 it says "U.S. President Donald Trump labels "antifa" a terrorist organization." This is misleading since the source actually says that he just intends to do this. to use the word "labels" gives the idea that he officially designated it, but this is not the case. Here is a link to the Congress resolution proposal, and notice on the "Actions" subsection that it has only been introduced to the Senate, and no further actions has taken place.

In my opinion a better wording could be "U.S. President Donald Trump expresses his intention to label "antifa" a terrorist organization".

Hopefully this helps, I'm new on Wikipedia edition so let me know if something doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.163.200.11 (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure the event is even of international significance. It probably ought to go. Deb (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exclude due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

PlayStation 5

The launch of the PS5 is notable and should be acceptable for inclusion in 2020. The fact that it's "just a console" isn't an argument to exclude it. This isn't some minor, obscure device. It's a global flagship product, released by one of the world's leading consumer electronics companies. Gaming is no longer a niche, it's a $100bn dollar industry, and today has substantial impact on culture and entertainment. The PS5 has had widespread international media coverage and has been highly anticipated for several years now. Practically all recent consoles have seen tens of millions of unit sales and in some cases over 100 million. I provided citations from multiple (four) continents, as per the rule for 2020. The Japan Times article even says "The new PlayStation is Sony’s most important gadget since the Walkman."

Discuss:-

    • The PlayStation 5 is released in North America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. The PS5 will distribute to the rest of the world starting November 19th.[1][2][3][4]
  • Do not include - Its status as a "flagship product" is irrelevant. Every launch of a product isn't notable in a global, historical, perspective. The launch of the first iPhone in 2007 is notable given its long-term global impact. The launch of every subsequent iPhone is not. Same applies with the latest iteration of the Playstation console. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
So, following the launch of the PlayStation in 1994, we now can't have anymore mentions until... the heat death of the universe? That's it, forever, and all subsequent mentions of "PlayStation consoles" are irrelevant, no matter how globally influential they are? The only PlayStation we can ever mention on these year pages is the original, 26 years ago? Your comparison with iPhones doesn't quite work. A new iPhone is released nearly every year, while gaming consoles have generational timespans that are substantially longer. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It would be abusrd and reductionist to suggest "we now can't have anymore mentions until... the heat death of the universe". The point is notability and whether a particular device release has a historically significant impact that merits to be listed in a list of notable events for a year. Why is it so important to you that this device is listed here? It has its own article and a place to note its initial reception. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I produced four references, from respected sources, each from a different continent. The Japan Times article even says (emphasis mine) "The new PlayStation is Sony’s most important gadget since the Walkman." Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, the article that makes the "most important gadget since the Walkman" statement embeds this story into that utterance, which makes the point that Sony needs a major financial win with this launch. So the importance is frame more as (my words) "important for their business", not "important for the planet". --ZimZalaBim talk 18:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if we did a search for the launches of the previous Playstations, would we also find that kind of headlines? --McSly (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, the reception noted at PlayStation_5#Reception is tepid, with "general" praise, but also limited supplies at launch. This device has been on the market for only a few days, and clearly not a global event to list here. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Per WjFox2005, In my opinion i do think that this console is important to be added and included to this article. Are you sure, that the PS5 launch wasn't affected by the current outbreak around the world and most gaming shops have closed in which gamers could of had to buy them online instead in countries such as Japan. [5] The PS5 is one of the best consoles i have seen in along time and in the Japan Times, it also says "It’s the first proper, new Sony console since 2013 and its predecessor, the PlayStation 4, sold 113 million units and transformed gaming into the most important part of Sony’s business". In which, i do agree with. D Eaketts (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
User:D Eaketts, has this discussion been listed on a Wikiproject page? I'm wondering what alerted you to it. If it's been listed on other discussion pages, we should make sure that coverage is comprehensive. Deb (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I just don't think marketing (or journalistic) hyperbole should drive inclusion. Maybe it will be as impactful as the Walkman or sell as many as units as PS4, but we just don't know right now and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't have much to add to this discussion (though I'm in agreement with the arguments against inclusion as put forward by Deb and ZimZalaBim), though if we're going to dispute and remove the launch of the PS5, it makes no sense to leave the same for the latest Xbox console intact. Both should be removed unless there's a firm consensus in favour of including game console launches. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see mention of Xbox in this article. There's only the notable mention of Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda Softworks for US$7.5 billion. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This is unrelated but I somehow did a thing where the references for this talk section went under my semi-protected edit request. Does anyone know how to fix this?136.49.255.70 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Exclude because it's an updated version of a previous product. If we were to include such things, many year articles would have many such entries. Jim Michael (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "PS5: PlayStation's 'most extraordinary' pandemic launch". BBC News. 12 November 2020. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  2. ^ "PlayStation 5: The Next Step in Sony's Rebound". NY Times. 12 November 2020. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  3. ^ "First review: PlayStation 5's big leap forward". The Australian. 11 November 2020. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  4. ^ "With the PlayStation 5, Sony sees a long-term cash cow amid gaming boom". The Japan Times. 12 November 2020. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  5. ^ "Sony won't sell PS5 in shops in Japan due to coronavirus". Eurogamer. 5 November 2020. Retrieved 18 November 2020.

Proposed removals

Some questionable entries that I feel should be removed from the Deaths section:

  • Christie Blatchford - Canadian journalist (removed)
  • Edd Byrnes - a very minor actor, mainly known for one role in a 1960s TV series
  • Branko Cikatić - Croatian kickboxer, a champion in a minor sport removed
  • Caroline Flack - made headline news in the UK, virtually unknown outside it removed
  • James Lipton - US actor, little international notability
  • Nicholas Parsons - very English, very long-lived presenter, but little-known outside the UK removed
  • Isabel-Clara Simó - very important in Catalonia, but little known outside Spain removed
  • Jahn Teigen - Norwegian singer, known only for his Eurovision fiasco removed
  • Ulay - German performance artist, limited international reputation removed
  • Andrew Weatherall - apologies if I've raised this before but it stands out as a little-known name in the UK removed

Views, please? Deb (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

None objection in removing all of them, even though Edd Byrnes' and Ulay's death had remarkable international coverage, so in both cases I would wait for further other users' opinion. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
We have had the discussion about Andrew Weatherall before during which I pointed out that not many "little-known" Brits have a New York Times obit. Also - BBC, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Guardian, Variety, Der Spiegel, Corriere della Sera, 7News (Aus), NOS (Norway), Globo (Brazil), etc, etc. He has articles at (at least) de,fr,it and nl wikis. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought it might have come up before. Deb (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Disagree on Lipton. Inside the Actor's Studio was very popular and aired in places like Argentina, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, and Russia. It's quite easy to find non-English sources about his death: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Nohomersryan (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

  • Alberto Alesina - important, "according to Lawrence Summers" (removed)
  • Renato Corti] - anything special about this particular Italian cardinal? (removed)
  • Keiji Fujiwara - there are an awful lot of voice actors and they are typically not household names. (removed)
  • Richard K. Guy - published a lot but so do many academics (removed)
  • Michael McClure - apparently famous in America but not in the rest of the world (removed)
Exclude all in this section but Lipton due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 consensus sought

I have a few concerns about the coverage in this article:

  1. Do we really need to record every perceived milestone in terms of numbers of cases, numbers dead? For example, there's a good case for "The number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 passes 10 million worldwide" (June 28) being included, but do we then need to retain "The number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 passes 9 million worldwide" only 6 days earlier?
  2. Puffery and synthesis. Some countries would like to suggest they are doing better than anyone else - for example, "Moderna files an application for Emergency Use Authorization in the United States after its vaccine achieved an efficacy of 94.1% from full trials without safety concerns. It also plans to do the same in EU soon" (November 30) - is this really news before it's happened? And equally bad - "The United Kingdom becomes the first nation to begin a mass inoculation campaign using a clinically authorised, fully tested vaccine" (no mention of the fact that the vaccine was developed in the US and Europe and obtained from the manufacturer in Belgium), whilst a few days earlier the vaccine used in the Russian programme is described as the "Sputnik V candidate".

I know that others have expressed concern and would like to hear some other views. Deb (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

I request that Rick May is added to the list of deaths for April Zgamer420 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think he's internationally notable, why haven't you added him to 2020 in Canada? Deb (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. h 09:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Chuck Yeager

Chuck Yeager was also world renowned, he was the first person to break the sound barrier and his death got international coverage since his achievement was an aviation milestone, not a national one, so he should go before kim ki duk. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer 340 Cipher

I'm genuinely just curious as to whether the Zodiac Killer's 340 cipher being decoded is worthy of noting here. It's been reported by notable people such as the San Francisco Police and the FBI, and I feel that its a noteworthy event considering the Zodiac murders' status as (arguably) the most notable unsolved serial murders in America, and how the cipher as been puzzling people for over 50 years. Do we think that this is notable enough for inclusion on the page? I'm not invested or anything, so I don't mind what the consensus is, but I saw an article about it this morning which prompted me to ask. PunkAndromeda (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, personally. I've never even heard of it, so I guess it's another US-centric story, although there seems to be no mention in 2020 in the United States. Deb (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Doug Anthony

I see that there has been a dispute over whether to include this politician. My personal opinion is that, whilst his tenure as Deputy Prime Minister of a major country gives him an international status, the reality is that he does not appear to be internationally well-known, and therefore I would exclude him. Deb (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The musical comedy troupe don't appear to be widely known. The inclusion of the mayor of Seoul was discussed here. If you think any of the other entries don't merit inclusion, by all means propose that here and we can come to consensus on those too. Deb (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I just had a look at that discussion - it seems he was included because he was a long-serving mayor of Seoul, rather than any other reason (including the circumstances of his death). Which to me doesn't make all too much sense to include the mayor of (any) city but not a Deputy Prime Minister of a major country (and one who was the longest-serving). But the point is, if one of the most notable and longest-serving Deputy Prime Ministers of Australia is deemed not worthy of inclusion, then how is it that his equivalent in other countries (such as the United States) is usually automatically included without question, and that other, far more minor figures such as Nexhmije Hoxha and Enrique Múgica are included? (Having said all that, I withdraw my objection to Stanisław Kania as while his English Wiki bio is very short, it seems he actually did lead Poland during its communist era - albeit for one year) Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at Enrique Múgica myself and wondering. I think he's there because of his outspoken opposition to a dictator in a controversial period, but I wouldn't be averse to removing him. In the case of Nexhmije Hoxha, it's often difficult to assess the role of a woman who's married to an important politician. I've been to Albania and she was certainly mentioned during guided tours. I think her influence was important, I suppose in the same way as Elena Ceaușescu. I wouldn't defend the inclusion of a British deputy PM just because they were deputy PM and I also wouldn't insist on the inclusion of every American VP, but Agnew, Humphrey and Rockefeller were all well-known international figures (often for all the wrong reasons). Deb (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Geospatial World

Geospatial World also called it "the worst year in terms of climate change" in part due to major climate disasters worldwide, including major bushfires in Australia and the western United States, as well as extreme tropical cyclone activity affecting large parts of North America.

That sentence is the same length as the covid info in the lead, and is attributed to an org that doesn't have it's own article. I feel a claim by a minor org like this is not due weight for the lead.  Nixinova   T   C   05:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Changeover

I think the entire world is now in 2021. Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No, still a few parts of the uninhibited United States are still stuck in 2020... ShadowCyclone talk 11:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Nashville bombing

Should the bombing in Tennessee be added for December 25th on the calendar of events? Camdoodlebop (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because it was a domestic event. It's on 2020 in the United States. Jim Michael (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 was the worst year ever

This sentence should probably be removed, or at least change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puidwen (talk • contribs) 04:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and editor warned. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support for Windows 7

We don't usually include items about the withdrawal of old tech or its support. In the absence of something major such as a large-scale cyberattack, this isn't important enough to be included. Jim Michael (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, JM. Deb (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked into previous precedent and it appears that you're correct. Withdrawing my support for inclusion for now. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed removals

There seems to have been a spate of names being added to the Deaths section just because they died, without consideration for their international notability or otherwise. So here are some names I think should be removed:

  • Claude Brasseur, French actor - the brevity of his article suggests little international notability (removed)
  • James Flynn (academic) - does giving his name to an "effect" constitute international notability?
  • Valentin Gaft, Russian actor - limited international notability (removed)
  • Robert Hossein, French actor with some notability but not exactly a household name (removed)
  • K. C. Jones, US baseball player - does anyone outside the US know of him?
  • Brodie Lee, US wrestler - does anyone outside the US know of him?
  • Pat Patterson (wrestler) - little international notability (removed)
  • Dawn Wells, minor US actress apparently known only for one sitcom (removed)

Views, please. Deb (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I would say Brodie Lee is notable, working on the basis that I am in the UK, know nothing about wrestling, and had still heard of him. I suspect an article with 258 references would back that one up as well. Also - New York Times obituary is always a good pointer, and I see obituaries from multiple countries. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • K. C. Jones was inducted into both the Naismith and College Basketball Hall of Fame. He is by all means notable. I can't speak to anyone else you listed. (Though being a basketball fan, my view is definitely biased) LeBron4 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know much about basketball, but it seems to me that nearly all basketball players are in some Hall of Fame or other. I don't get the impression it means they are internationally notable. Deb (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    Keep Flynn & Jones; exclude the rest. Jones' achievements include an Olympic gold medal. Jim Michael (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I believe Pat Patterson has worldwide notability since he was a professional wrestler for WWF/WWE for years. He should be put back. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Did he achieve anything specific that would indicate enough notability? Jim Michael (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: He was the first ever and creator of the Intercontinental championship. He was also the first openly gay wrestler. He worked backstage for years, and was also the creator of the Royal Rumble, which is one of WWEs most popular gimmick matches ever. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

True or false? Year- and date-related articles must cite reliable secondary sources for all line items? Can someone point me to the consensus where this changed? As I understand it, a prior consensus permitted unsourced entries and that is no longer permitted. Please advise. Elizium23 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

Can Pop Smoke be added to the deaths for February 19,2020?

Sources: https://www.tmz.com/2020/02/19/pop-smoke-dead-dies-20-murdered-home-invasion-robbery/ https://abcnews.go.com/US/charged-murder-rapper-pop-smoke-face-death-penalty/story?id=71766283 2600:8802:2900:EF:21C0:63E7:E908:369E (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done KRtau16 (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd (list of deaths)

Obviously he wasn't very noteworthy prior to his death but the resulting reaction and profound effects of his death surely qualify him for a mention & picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhd (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The protests are mentioned in the Events section. He had no notability prior to his death, so he shouldn't be in the Deaths section. Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Deb (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly he should be,his death caused major effects around the USA. even if he had no notability before his tragic death,I feel it would be some what jarring to newcomers and pretty much everyone else if he wasn't included Yeial (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The Deaths section should include internationally notable people only. He isn't notable at all, only his death is. Even his death isn't internationally notable, only the reaction to it is. Jim Michael (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
He has 36 different languages, not sure why he can be considered. Same goes for some of these people too, Regis Philbin, Conchata Ferrell, Robert Hossein, Dawn Wells, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Herman Cain, Brodie Lee. Sam Lloyd. Matt Campbell (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
If they have over more than 9 non-English languages then they should be considered. Matt Campbell (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What notability do any of them have outside their own country? Jim Michael (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any case at all for Sam Lloyd - he seems to be known mainly for one role in a US series, which are two a penny in world terms. The same goes for Conchata Ferrell and Robert Hossein is little known outside France. If we include Herman Cain then we would need to include so many other US political activists. It's akin to suggesting we include people like Tommy Robinson from the UK. Only political leaders and the very top names should be included; there's no room for people like UK cabinet ministers or US state governors unless they have done something out of the ordinary. Unfortunately the number of entries in other language Wikipedias is no longer a good guide as it has become habit for the creators of these articles to try to ensure maximum coverage by using the translation facility. Deb (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
None of the others have international notability either. Receiving international media coverage, having fans in other countries etc. aren't sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The rules are 9 different non-english languages, it's not about having fans in other countries.Matt Campbell (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
And I don't even who all of those people are for all 12 of the months, and most of them have over 9 non-English languages. Just like some of these other people i just mentioned. Matt Campbell (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There are no rules, there can only ever be guidelines. There are always going to be exceptions. Personally I would gauge international notability by the reaction of international sources to someone's death, rather than how many language wikis people have been bothered to write articles in (or, as Deb says, how many wikis the creator of an article has bothered to translate them into). There are people in niche areas (especially the arts) that have multiple language wiki entries, and there are people with huge fame in a few countries that have fewer. And then there are people like George Floyd whose notability is only in their death and the (inter)national reaction to it; in those cases I woul agree that the entry should be for the news story rather than the person. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Then where did i hear they have to have 9 non-English languages? Matt Campbell (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • It was suggested as a guideline. But that's all it can ever be, because it's a metric that depends on what random editors do. People who are on TV or in films that are internationally distributed, for example, tend to be written about more purely for that reason, but there are people with huge notability in areas that aren't touched by popular culture; scientists, professors, mathematicians, historians and so on. The result is that there are very notable people with fewer than 9 other wiki entries, and many less notable people with more that 9. Indeed, if you look at the lists of other wiki entries for many people, especially obscure politicians, they're simply automatic translations and never get any pageviews at all. So; it can only ever be a guideline, and that's why we have discussions about them. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, it was suggested, but as a minimum. We do make exceptions - for example, the president of a small country would be included even if s/he only had five or six non-English links. You'll find individual fans going around auto-translating and creating stub articles in multiple wikis in an attempt to make it look like their particular idol has international notability. Deb (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Articles in at least 9 languages as well as English used to be the guide for inclusion. Heads of state & government were an exception to that. With the exception of interim heads, they're always important enough to be included. Jim Michael (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that 9 unspecified wikis is excessive anyway. I'd suggest that if an article is covered in at least 3 or 4 of the most high-traffic non-English Wikipedias (DE, FR, RU, ES, JA, IT, NL), it's probably hitting that international notability as long as it has similar coverage in multinational RS. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Deb (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
In many cases, the person has no international notability, but they have many WP articles & their death is covered by the mainstream media in many countries because they have fans in many countries. That's very common with actors - for example Dustin Diamond. Jim Michael (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not talking about the usual copied-from-PA-or-Reuters "X has died aged Y" stuff - I totally agree that sort of thing shouldn't count. I am talking about original material published by top-of-the-range sources here. I'm somewhat confused here, I must admit. Wikipedia uses RS to define notability, and other Wikipedias are not RS. We seem to be putting the fact that some random editor in Croatia or the Phillipines decided to write an article on their home wiki and that is being counted as more important than an obituary in the NYT or Figaro. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 lockdowns

Was there a consensus to remove the entries for China's Wuhan lockdown on January 23, and Italy's nationwide lockdown on March 9? I remembered them being listed, and arguably both are significant enough to be listed (first epidemic-related lockdown & first nationwide lockdown). NoNews! 10:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Being first doesn't make them internationally notable. They should be on 2020 in China & 2020 in Italy rather than here. Jim Michael (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
With COVID-19 being of such high notability internationally, the initial lockdowns are landmark events. I find them way more notable than the other entries on March 17/18 mentioning the cancellation of some tournaments, or that on March 24 mentioning India's lockdown, or that on April 5 mentioning some infected animal, etc. NoNews! 02:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

Under August 10th - a reference should be made to the following event:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2020_Midwest_derecho SallySmurf (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  1. Why do you feel it should?
  2. Please provide a reference

Deb (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Murder of Samuel Paty

The Brutal nature of the beheading of Samuel Paty by an Islamic extremist following a large scale hate campaign against him, the subsequent controversy with the large protest's in France and Europe as a whole supporting Freedom of expression. The counter terrorisim operations by the French government and the subsequent reactions by other country's particularly Turkey and Pakistan whos presidents called for a boycott of French goods during protests in many Islamic country's in which protestors called for boycotts against the French and voicing their displeasure at people in Europe being allowed to draw cartoons of Muhamad really means that Mr Patys killing should have its own mention in this Wikipedia article. It was certainly a global far reaching event for 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-security-teacher-idUSKBN2720S3 https://apnews.com/article/turkey-pakistan-dubai-boycotts-saudi-arabia-3151b17cadd7723106ef85508a5f37ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9A0C:5A03:19BE:E3CE:66B5:BD5A (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It's for 2020 in France rather than here. It'd only be important enough for here if there were major international consequences, such as sanctions being imposed. Jim Michael (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Image deleted

Can I ask when Image collages are not allowed on years´ articles? Especially when all of the images pertain to the year. I saw that the 1990s decade had one, so can I just used the collage their instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaf8613 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020/Archive_3&oldid=1136475880"