This is an archive of past discussions about 2020s. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
“With all the above misfortunes, 2020's can be seen as the most challenging decade since the 1960s which saw Cuban Missile Crisis and various Cold War related incidents. Because of this, it made many of these smiley faces, emoticons, users, and emojis very angry and enraged to this timeline.”
For some reason, I inserted another type of material in this article. But within few seconds, it got reverted, I think this should be added to the article and page. I also even did linking on those words to pages. Can you please all explain why it is reverted? Please elaborate, you know. 2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62 (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
It appears to be opinion, or original research, and at least partially a joke, none of which are appropriate for a Wikipedia article. If there is a reliable source calling the 2020s "the most challenging decade since the 1960s", then it can be reinstated with a citation. Otherwise it doesn't belong. WPscattert/c08:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Wpscatter Can you try to elaborate more on the second sentence I added to the article?
Because it makes zero sense to attach emotions to inanimate objects such as emojis and to refer to this decade as "this timeline". No reasonable person would have any idea what point it was trying to make. PaulRKil (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The citations for the relevance of the other images are elsewhere in the article. Not how I would have organized things, but they're there. Come to think of it, those citations should probably be copied to the image captions. WPscattert/c19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Death of Elizabeth II
Should the death of Elizabeth II, be considered a significant event of the 2020s? There seems to be some disagreement about this. I believe it should given the Queen's popularity and her reign marking the second Elizabethan era in which most of the world's living population was born into and has lived through. I'm not sure why some don't consider her death significant enough to mention as a highlighting event of the 2020s. Jjfun3695 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
No significant political or socio-economic changes occurred as a result of her death. As I stated, the house of Windsor still rule and no constituent realms have changed or announced their intent to become a republic after her death. Had these events happened, I’d support the inclusion in the lead. In regards to length of reign and how many people lived through her reign, the same things could be said regarding King Bhumibol who ruled longer than Elizabeth or Pope John Paul II whose death and funeral was probably similar in size. We don’t include them in the leads for their decades, nor should we with Elizabeth. PaulRKil (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The difference is that the King of Thailand was hardly known, the Queen was known everywhere. I also think John Paul II should have a lead in the 2000s page given that his death was just as seismic of an event. Jjfun3695 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The King of Thailand was far from hardly known and dominated culture in Asia. Had the death of John Paul II lead to another schism or the end of the Vatican, it'd be notable, but again while these figures are important and their deaths were widely covered, there was nothin seismic that occured as a result of their deaths. It'd be more appropriate to include the demise of the institution itself, not a person who temporarily holds it dying naturally, no matter how large a figure. PaulRKil (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
You'll need to explain how the King of Thailand dominated culture in Asia. That's a pretty big claim. Asia is a very big place. Elizabeth was head of the Commonwealth of Nations, comprising 2.5 billon people, for 70 years. That's pretty significant. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I will concede that maybe saying "dominated culture in Asia" was a bit too far, but Bhumibol still ruled for a similar amount of time as Elizabeth and was involved in some crucial historical events that effect Thailand and its surrounding neighbors. Leading the Commonwealth of Nations is not that significant. It is an association of sovereign countries, she didn't directly rule over them. There are similar and far more important organizations that we don't have single leads for when they die such as, again, the papacy, the secretary general of the united nations, or the president of the european commission.
I'm willing to put in a sentence in the lead that says "Many prominent world leaders died in the 2020s, such as XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, and Elizabeth II, the latter of who ruled for seventy years." Take a look at the lead for 2022 for an example of what I am talking about. I think we need to avoid wording like "this is an end of an era" or similar grandiose statements that put undue weight on a western institution like the british monarchy. PaulRKil (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The original entry in the lead read as follows “The 2020s were also seen as a time of seismic change in eras, when Queen Elizabeth II died at age 96 on 8 September 2022 after reigning for 70 years.” which I think put way too much weight on a figurehead leader of an office with no real power dying, and whose death did not end with any major political changes. It would have been “seismic” if Canada, Australia, and New Zealand decided they’d become independent republics or the monarchy itself was dissolved, but this did not happen. PaulRKil (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, and it doesn't make sense to me, a lot of monarchists virtually worshipped Elizabeth. I was on an American cruise ship when she died, and saw the close to saturation coverage even the American news networks gave to her death and funeral preparations. You and I might agree that she was "a figurehead leader of an office with no real power", but a lot of other people saw it differently. No country was going to become an independent republic instantly upon her death. That's a silly measure. But as an Australian, I can assure you that those seeking a republic have become a lot louder and more active since she died. Australia now has a government minister with the explicit role of moving Australia towards a republic and he has been in the news a lot more in the past month. There are parallel but less loud rumblings in Canada and NZ. If Australia does become a republic in five years time (the shortest realistic timeframe), Elizabeth's death will definitely have contributed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Look, I am sure that the event is significant and could perhaps feature in a collage of a decade that is not particularly eventful, but as I said earlier, with Covid-19 and Ukraine, there are only 3-4 spots max for any other events, and it's not even 2023 yet. We just don't see this event as a "must have" as it lacks the deeper social, economic and political impact that events such as Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine had. People feel strongly about the monarchy, but also feel strongly about major sport events, tv shows and so forth. They all get extensive media coverage, but are unlikely to feature high in history books. Dadoso90 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Be wary of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, if those things happen, the Queen's death will have contributed. If and when that comes to pass, we can re-evaluate the significance of her passing and add it to this article. As it stands currently, her death has had no major effects on society at large, certainly not compared to COVID or the invasion of Ukraine. Her name certainly belongs in a list of significant deaths of the year/decade, but events? Not so much. WPscattert/c19:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
“The 2020s were also seen as a time of seismic change in eras, when Queen Elizabeth II died at age 96 on 8 September 2022 after reigning for 70 years.”
Is there any reason why the infobox for this page, as well as every other decade page, was removed? Individual years still have them so why don’t the decades? Zedonathin2020 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Bad image choice in collage
We're only 2 years into the 2020s - 4 images is way too many to have in the collage already. Also, the images in the collage should generally only include events that span multiple years of the decade. COVID and Ukraine are good image choices. I think Afghanistan withdrawal and the George Floyd Protests should be removed, as they were single events that were no longer than a few months each. In the future, the mix of images should generally include some positive events and technological innovations too like past collages - the current mix is all "negative" events, which is an incorrect representation of reality. comment added by 2604:3d08:3686:9800:e58d:b3ce:a909:1c73 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
1. That collage is customizable, pictures can be added and/or removed easily without having to make a new image in Commons. that means you can easily add big events easily from the decade as they happen.
2. you need a consensus first before removal and there's only one person saying removal, which is you, a random IP address, and we don't always trust random IP address as you can make a proxy to make it look like you're from a different location,
I'm leaning towards it being a good idea, but we'd have to keep it very limited (like 1 per year). I'd support it if others support it.
2020 would obviously be COVID, and 2022 would obviously be Ukraine (both would need their own talk page discussions to pick which photo would be the one on the collage), but 2021 is the big question. Unlike 2020 and 2022, there wasn't one single defining event already covered. My personal preference right now is is the January 6 US Capitol attack (or insurrection or whatever you want to call it), but we could also do Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, or maybe even James Webb? Folding phones is just a bad idea anyways; there is stuff much more notable than that. Plus, Huawei and Samsung announced and publicly demonstrated folding phones before the pandemic. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm iffy on NFTs. They rose quickly but fell quickly too. I think some sort of 2021 coup or coup attempt, like Myanmar or J6, would be better. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with foldable smartphones being in the collage. While it would be nice to have something to represent technological advancement, they're not something that have caught on amongst the people I know, and even if they do they haven't really changed anything on a societal level. If we want to represent technological advancement in this decade I think it should be the rapid development of COVID vaccines. I don't think there's much point creating a collage so early into the decade. Other than COVID and the invasion of Ukraine it's hard to say what the most significant events will be. --82.38.192.41 (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
the foldable phones are more of a placeholder until something bigger happens, the collages meant to make it look better and make it look like more of a decade page. 4me689 (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. As of right now its 2022 and almost 2023. We are not even halfway, even a quarter way through the decade yet and theres a collage. I get that the images can be replaced whenever, but we should at least wait unil 2025-2026, when the decade starts to seep in to add images. Leaf8613 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I would agree that Covid-19, Ukraine and JJST are (for now) representative of the decade. Covid is likely to linger a little more, so is Ukraine, and JJST will likely give us some more interesting images for years to come. But I also agree that for now the other 2 images can stay as placeholders until something bigger happens, it doesn't hurt to keep them until then. (Perhaps one of them could be replaced with the change of royalty in the UK, but that could also be considered a short event.) Dhrm77 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I am again expressing my feelings about the fact that we should not have an entire image collage for the decade at 2022 not even 2023 then. If you really want it up, the only things that deserve to be up their are Covid 19 and Ukraine. The rest are not worth defening an entire decade when we have 8 years left of it. Leaf8613 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I can understand where you're coming from, but the 2020s are among the craziest decades in human history so far. At 2012 or 2013, I would have sided with you, but given a pandemic, an invasion in Europe, multiple coups, and a coup attempt in the world's most powerful country, as well as quite a few notable assassinations so far, we should probably get a collage in with at least a few of these events. We can always change it later if China invades Taiwan or something else big happens...actually it makes me wonder if anything bigger than COVID or Ukraine other than Taiwan will even happen ;) InvadingInvader (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@InvadingInvader Good point, but I think that 2027 should be one when many images of collage should be added to this article. If the collage should be included by the end of a decade for any other means, then a collage should mainly be necessary to be added to this article. If it is too early to be included, then we need to wait a few more years or until the decade finally comes to an end and a new decade comes. I think this is my idea I came up with. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Precisely. As one event in the future happens and becomes more notable than an event on the collage, we replace it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I am personally not in favour of a collage, but if we need to have one, we should only include events that are at least likely to be considered memorable over a 10 years span. The death of Elizabeth II is a highly mediatised event that is going to have very little historical impact, also considering that UK is no longer the great power it used to be. The images on technological developments are also meh, but it is difficult to include this section of the collage so early in the decade. I would suggest to limit the number of images in the collage to what is really important: Covid-19 and Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fall of Kabul is sadly already forgotten 1 year later, but I guess it could stay there for the time being. Dadoso90 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
And when you think it cannot get any worse, a picture about short-term US protests from 2 years ago pop ups... We should rename the collage: highights of the decade, according to US and UK users :D Dadoso90 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that when you take any period of 10 years, you'll always find some crazy shit. Perhaps this time is crazier than usual, but it's hard to tell and determining that is extremely subjective.
I might be willing to have pictures if we leave it to the very most significant events. COVID is the biggest thing of the decade, that's fine to include. Wars are tricky, but including something about the Russian invasion of Ukraine might be acceptable, especially now that Russia is mobilizing and threatening using nukes. I'm unsure about the end of the War in Afghanistan, since it hasn't made any large worldwide impacts. Apart from if a future Franz Ferdinand situation happens, I think deaths should be off-limits, including Queen Elizabeth. It's sad she died, but the effect of her death on the world is low. James Webb could maybe be on there, but, again, I'm unsure if it has made the kinds of impacts needed to include it in a decade collage. BLM is big, but I would raise the question of if we are being too US-centric for including a primarily US social movement.
The big problem with developing a 2020s collage right now isn't that big events haven't happened yet, it's that it's simply too early to determine and weigh their impacts. And because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, I think it is better to not have a collage for now. (If we do keep a collage, can we please get some better images? These ones are bad.) ~BappleBusiness[talk]02:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@4me689: The perceived "craziness" of the decade is totally irrelevant to the issue. We're only two years into a ten year decade. It's just too early to be putting collages up on the published article. Speculating? Sure. But not publishing it. We have no idea what will or won't happen in the next 8 years. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 Uncertainly, since this decade isn't finished yet and most of the events are from the early 2020s that can define a year rather than a decade, it is very unlikely that those images of collage are going to make it to the decade unless there is a agreement to this discussion. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and the feedback is much current. But there is more to see in later part of the decade rather than the early. Adding collage images would take time in finding one. I would suggest that construction of buildings and art painted recently to be added to the collage image, they are also considered the influence of the 2020s. By the way, thanks for creating the collage of it. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Since this is the third year, I believe that we should wait about 5 more years or when the decade ends, we should choose collages wisely as much of them only happens in a certain types of the era of the decade. One, like the pandemic, only happens at the early era of the decade. We should think on what collages are need to be included on this article. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:8D0D:93:9EB9:6D19 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm new to the discussion, but I've been thinking about the collage for the 2020s for some time. I agree that we should choose wisely and wait the end of the decade to double-check the relevance of some events in the long term perspective. I think that basically the collage shall show only two kind of events: a) the global crises tha had a true "historical impact" on our lives and b) the milestone events of global progress that happen in the decade. So, for example, a reasonable collage might include:
1. COVID-19
2. Russian invasion of Ukraine
3. OpenAI (IF the trend gets bigger and the use of AI really goes mainstream within 2029)
4. India surpassing China as the most populous country on Earth (predicted for 2023)
5. First woman on the Moon (IF the Artemis III mission actually launches and succeeds)
Any way we can resize the middle image in the top row of the collage (the George Floyd protests one) to make it fit better? I definitely think its inclusion has merit (it's the largest global protest movement of the decade so far, by far), I just think all the photos should be the same size, or extremely close to the same size, for the lead montage. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you verify that Black Lives Matter (specifically the George Floyd protests) was the largest global protest movement of the 2020s in the world? I would think that isn't such an easy assumption, given the size of other protest movements so far this decade. One that comes to mind is the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, with the general strike in November 2020 having possibly up to 250 million people participate (although that figure is dubious). How about the protests right now in Iran? Remember that this is a worldwide encyclopedia. ~BappleBusiness[talk]05:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I was more referring to the scale of protests worldwide connected to the death of George Floyd, not so much the specific number of people who protested. See this article and notice the number of other countries around the world where protests were held: List of George Floyd protests outside the United States. In contrast, the Indian farmers' protests took place only in India, "With minor small scale protests seen in countries such as US, UK, Canada and New Zealand", while the George Floyd protests "took place in over 60 countries and on all seven continents". That all being said, the protests you mention above should absolutely be added to the lead text for their obvious relevance and notability (which I just did). Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not only a matter of scale. The pictures in the collage should represent pivotal moments in contemporary history. Any major protests in the US obviously have global outreach. As such, they generate similar movements all over the world, even though most of them are pale imitations that wither in a matter of weeks or months. Other US movements such as Occupy or MeToo had similar global outreach (NB: none of them was included in previous collages, and rightly so).
The question is not how many people attended these protests or their global recognition, but whether these protests are a pivotal point in the history of the decade. Covid-19 and Russia-Ukraine war are arguably the most important pivotal moments so far, while the fall of Kabul was pivotal for the region, and also in the US domestic debate, but it's broader importance still has to be determined.
Race discrimination has been a prominent feature of the US political debate for many decades, so anti-racism protests could technically be included in most collages. However, while the 1960s were definitely a pivotal point in this regard, I am not sure we can really say the same regarding the most recent developments.
Obviously, the death of Queen Elizabeth does not belong here either. The emotion around her passing has not managed the rescue the Tories, let alone have any global impact, apart from tabloidish hype. Also, there is a long established policy of avoding collage references to specific individuals unless it's really necessary.
NB: the final collage will have about 8 pictures. If 2-3 of them are dedicated to scientific, technological or socio-economic developments, we are left with 5-6 pictures for major events. Covid-19 and Ukraine-Russia are likely to take 2 of these spots, so we are left with 3-4 spots for events occurring in the next 7 years.... Dadoso90 (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
COVID, Afghanistan & Ukraine should stay long-term. BLM/Floyd, Elizabeth II, the January 6 attack & the Indian protests aren't important enough. The Iranian protests aren't important enough yet. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure how the death of Queen Elizabeth II, would not be considered important enough to be included. I would argue other than COVID 19, her death has been one of the most seismic events of this decade. Most of the world's population was born during her reign and her impact on 70 years of world history was enormous. I think this also demonstrated by the fact the pretty much every world leader with a few exceptions attended her funeral and her funeral has been reported to be the most watched television event ever in history. Just because Britain is no longer an Empire does not demonstrate that the Queen's influence and popularity was diminished. Jjfun3695 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that QE2 is probably the most significant death in a few decades, likely since the death of Pope John Paul II. We don't have the pope's death in the lead of the 2000s article. Both figures died natural deaths (ie weren't assassinated) and largely expected given their age. Article leads for decades should be reserved for major developments in politics, war, technology, science or cover major disasters and tragedies ie earthquakes and assassinations, etc. PaulRKil (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Uhm
The 2020s so far have been pretty depressing, it should be known as the Conflicted Decade. Especially with COVID, detioration of relations between nations, nuclear threats and more. Hsija (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey. Drop the negativity. We've got nearly seven years to go yet. It could turn out delightful. More seriously, we write what reliable sources say, not what individual editors think. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be negative, but I am a part of Wikipedia as well and I believe all users should have a say in things, Hsija (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
"it should be known as the Conflicted Decade." Based on which source? We can not coin our own terms. And can you think of any decade which is devoid of conflict? Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
No. Nobody other than you are using those terms. Wikipedia isn't here for you to coin terms for decades with zero sources. PaulRKil (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
My Take on the 2020s
The 2020s should be called the nostalgia decade. We still have nearly 70% of the decade to go, but I still think we should call it such. Crocs have grown in popularity again, vinyl has made a comeback, many old songs are becoming popular again with some of them hitting their peaks, and there's so many other things regaining popularity; I also think tik tok's influence in this happening needs to be mentioned in the main article TRJ2008 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Something novel to the 2020s that has spanned several years and had a large societal impact is the advent of "generative AIs" that are now easily accessible to many people, and generate extremely high quality results. This includes generative AIs such as ChatGPT (for generating text), DALLE-2 and Stable Diffusion (for generating images), and other AIs such as ElevenLab's Prime Voice (for generating voice audio clips). These AIs are already starting to have major effects on employment and economics. I'm not sure what image would represent this concept the best in the collage - any ideas? I imagine the image could have its own square, or replace the "2021 Fall of Kabul" square (since that was a singular event that occurred right at the start of the 2020s, and previously collages usually only have 1 "war" tile) ABetterTomorrow101 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as things stand now, AI could be a better fit in the collage compared to the Fall of Kabul or the Telescope. I am personally against forcibly including space-related pictures in each collage.. space exploration is important, but it's going to take centuries, so I guess not every decade collage has to include small improvements in this regard.. Dadoso90 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the the the Fall of Kabul needs to be replaced because there were in fact collages of previous decade that had included 2 wars and other conflicts such as the 1920s (Irish War of Independence and Chinese Civil War), 1950s (Korean War and Suez Crisis), the 1970s (Bangladesh Liberation War and Fall of Saigon), the 1990s (Gulf War and Second Congo War), and the 2000s (War on terror and Iraq War). Unless there's a major future event in the Afghanistan conflict, then I'll be on board, but right now I don't think it's necessary to replace it. 2607:FEA8:20A4:5A00:38F9:70A4:55BC:61C6 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Non-natural disaster
Should the 2023 Odisha train collision be added ? If so, should it be added in "General" ? What is the minimal number of fatalities for which a event can be added in "aviation" and in "general" ? Maxime12346 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Collage picture separation
Looks like a user split up the collage into all the individual pictures (July 5, 2023). Personally, I think it makes it look more messy. What are everyone’s thoughts? The ganymedian (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the old one looked better too. Now there’s potential for awkward empty spaces under captions (like with the Crimea picture in the similarly separated 2010s collage) Future Chromatica (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Use of flags
I've removed a large number of flags in tables from this article. These were not in accordance of the Manual of Style guidance.
See MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE - "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags" Using flags here largely assumes that the reader recognises them all. Most will not.
They therefore functioned largely as icon decoration, conveying little to the reader.
In some places, referencing the country simply repeats what the linked article already says, so there is a case for not having the country at all.
What exactly does it take to get a spot on the collage if not a massive news story causing substantial ripples in geopolitics? Everything in the collage is recent. how do we know how relevant the Russian invasion will be in 2029? 2001:569:5814:E200:F031:FD5:2F15:F748 (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there a good candidate image? And which image do people suggest we remove for it? I don’t particularly think we need to include it at this point, but it’s worth remembering that Wikipedia is not paper and we can change it later. — HTGS (talk)04:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
May be British royal family? The death of Queen Elizabeth and the coronation of Charles III in their respective years may be significant events, but from decade perspective, they are not as important. In the 1950s collages, there is no mention of the death of George VI or the coronation of Elizabeth. Nagae Iku (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
2020s collage early version V2.1
I have created a new version of 2020s collage, which includes the Israel-Hamas conflict. In addition to this, I have also included Tigray War and 5G. The former resulted in 80,000 to 600,000 deaths, while the latter had been previously included in earlier versions of the 2020s collage. Nagae Iku (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I will generally support international (“non-American”) images, so Tigray War is a decent candidate, but I do not think we need foldable phones or 5G. I would happily lose the overly patriotic photo of Zelensky though. — HTGS (talk)05:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2020s collage early version V2.2
As you requested, I have removed the image of 5G from the collage and created this version of the collage. How does it look and is there anything else that needs to be improved? Nagae Iku (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I too do not like the image of Zelensky representing the war in Ukraine for the current collage; the image of war should be of the war itself, not of one of its leaders since this introduces unnecessary bias. I don't know if the Tigray War should be included (even if it was a cause of a terrible loss of life).
Would an inclusion of January 6th be warranted? Probably not, but I'd like to throw the idea out there anyways.
I do think an image of "5G phones" is completely irrelevant.
The image for the Fall of Kabul should be changed. The picture of the overloaded plane is too busy and ambiguous without looking closer. I'd say the same for the other pictures for wars in the collage (in this case the image of Zelensky is actually better off considering how recognisable it is). Of course the problem with this is that not enough time has passed for there to be any consensus on an "iconic image" for any of these conflicts as opposed to, say, the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue for the Iraq War. I will say that the angle Iku has gone with the Ukraine image is still on the right track though: the miles upon miles that consisted of the tank column towards Kyiv in the opening of the war was and still remains striking. The image is just, as I said before for the one regarding Kabul, too busy.
AI definitely needs to stay in the collage: I don't think many would disagree on its continued importance. However, I think there could be better candidates: either a simple image of someone using Chat-GPT (unless this breaks copyright restrictions, of course), or an example of those dream-like pictures produced by Mini DALL-E which I think will remain as the archetype of AI in the public imagination (and also because any more recent creation will be too realistic to notice a diference between it and a human-made image, especially in a thumbnail format).
The COVID-19 image is fine, although it'd be equally as good as an image of a crowd of masked individuals or the image located on the COVID-19 Pandemic page.
This addition is just alright, but was this the most significant event compared to others in this decade? This resembles to be nothing new, the war of Israel-Hamas happened several years ago and it was still ongoing. Additionally, wars like in other parts of the world could be significant too, due to the fact that it had an impact on the whole world and its culture. So, why would this need to be included as part of this current decade if there are no events that had an influence on it? Does science and technology assist on improvement? 205.155.225.253 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for tagging me, but I have been following that RFC. I just don't know what to reply to that RFC. I feel very confused. If the outcome of the discussion is to delete it altogether, then let the collage be deleted. I'm tired. Nagae Iku (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024
This edit request to 2020s has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
5G networks have launched around the globe at the start of the decade as well, and became prevalent in smartphones. -- citation needed, i think 94.140.151.12 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: Edit requests are supposed to be specific. Please make requests in a detailed format such as "change X to Y" or "add X to Y" with exactly what you wish to be added. You can reopen this request if you have a certain image to add. — Urro[talk][edits]13:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024
This edit request to 2020s has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As the decade progresses, the war in Gaza is showing itself to be more and more relevant to geopolitics compared with the fall of Kabul. For the collage, should we replace the picture of Operation Allies Refuge with one representing the current invasion of Gaza, or not? Or should we have images of both, or perhaps neither? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Collage
It is way too early to add a collage of a decade that is barely a quarter of the way done. A collage for the 2010s was not added until it ended, the same principle should be applied here. 134.41.97.116 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree, but it's a lost cause.. it is a problem of enforcement, bored people keep re-introducing the collage every time is removed. The consensus was on keeping a minimal collage: AI, Kabul, Ukraine and Covid-19. Yet, the picture of the British royal family keeps re-appearing Dadoso90 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Remove, since it is too difficult to enforce rules and talk discussions are constantly ignored by a few users who keep introducing new images. I would be okay with a smaller collage including images that make sense: Covid-19, Ukraine, AI, but this does not seem to be a workable solution. Dadoso90 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I like the collage. There’s certainly no harm in having a collage that updates as the decade progresses. I don’t understand this demand for there to be no photo at all, when any respectable Wikipedia page starts with a photo 2A00:23C8:7484:AB01:84EC:7F7:C31:BE91 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Correct, I don’t see any problem with collages, asides on difference between technology and real world events that happened over a decade. -“Userbase3913” (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I would like to invite @HTGS to this discussion to remind him that there is a clear consensus to remove the images (he added them back on 3 January) DementiaGaming (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In keeping the collage for the moment, we are applying WP:STABLE. When the RFC on collages generally has closed we will likely know whether or not the collage here can remain as a general rule, until that point it appears bad faith to remove it mid-discussion. There is no hurry, and until a closure has been made, there is no harm leaving it as is without all this silly edit warring.
For the record, I oppose removing this collage, so we no longer have local consensus here either. (You could also call it WP:BRD if you like.) If it comes to it, we can hold a straw poll on whether this page should have a collage, or when it would be appropriate for a collage to be added. If a straw poll is not preferred, an RFC would also be fine. — HTGS (talk)08:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
So, the consensus is to remove them, then? The people who want to remove them have proved that it is not needed. If so, I will remove it this week. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Images should be kept, as they provide visual cues to the prominent events of the decade. I see no difference between this page and most others: they require editorial discretion, but also serve to inform the reader and provide interest to people landing on the article. — HTGS (talk)20:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't prove it, but I suspect the IP & Mobile editors who are re-adding the image, are likely the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with page protection, as anyone could still edit the article, but it prevents anonymous users from contributing usefully, so a consensus would assist on debating whether should collage be used or not. ArtForDecades610 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Popular Culture
I've noticed that Skibidi Toilet is wildly popular in the mid-2020s. It won't let me add it, so I want to poll and see if its worth adding because it is like Fortnite popular. Moron24 (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to see this... thing as a flash in the pan, but it does get described as "one of the biggest trends on the platform [Youtube]", with someone from YT saying "It’s become one of the year’s [2023] biggest cultural moments",[1] so honestly it probably does merit a mention, at least for now, until it's eclipsed by the next few years of cultural moments. — HTGS (talk)03:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Pick one - as long as it's not a picture of disease or devastation. How about this, taken from the JWST in '22. Appreciate the help. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Lead images?
I’m glad the topic above added space to broaden the scope beyond war and disease. AI was a good addition. To better align the images with the Wikipedia articles from past decades, should we include images more related to socio-cultural changes? And include more people/leaders that might be more recognizable or symbolic? For example, the Ukraine plane photo is OK, but perhaps we could use a photo of Zelensky in the early days of the invasion — more instantly recognizable, less liable to be confused with the other images of rubble, and even in line with the trend towards social media representation in global politics. And aligned with many other Wikipedia decade articles.
To broaden the scope beyond war, maybe add a Taylor Swift concert (thinking of the Beatles in the 1960s wikipedia article image montage) or anything else relevant to global popular culture? Diegojosesalva (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, we used to have different images, including one of Zelensky (see [2]). I don’t remember why it was removed, but I suspect it may have been seen as non-neutral. An image that speaks to the change in monarch (either in Charles's coronation or Elizabeth’s death) would be sensible to bring back in my opinion though.
For the record, I am not opposed to Zelensky’s inclusion, but would like to see consensus in support before restoring him. Note we might include Netanyahu for similar reasons, and would lead to similar disputes about neutrality. — HTGS (talk)06:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
Question: Which section? Shadow311 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: Edit requests are supposed to be specific. Please make requests in a detailed format such as "change X to Y" or "add X to Y" with exactly what you wish to be added. You can reopen this request if you have a certain image to add. 
