Talk:2020/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Notability

So just because now you have more editors than ever before with the huge number of users you think every single event is notable? Like the Indonesian flood its strictly a domestic event and nothing major given the high number of deaths similar floods have happened throughout the 2000s but were not noted as they were strictly domestic events not major events with worldwide coverage. Every date of January has been noted. Just compare this article to the 2000 article. Many significant event happened in January 2000, but not all were considered important to the whole world , the month April 2000 had only three events noted down on April 3, 22 and 30, while January 2020 already have every minor events to have happened noted down here, despite the fact April 2000 had way more notable events than January 2020 does so far that were not included in 2000 as not all were important to the whole world to be notable enough. Just look at January 5, 2020, it already has 5 events covered in it. Its more like a day by day news coverage than an wikipedia article noting the "most important events" in a year. What happened to the "recent years policy" ? Dilbaggg (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The "recent years" policy was established only by consensus at WT:YEARS, and was never ratified by the community. I think it was a good idea. To begin with, events within the Persian Gulf Crisis should be trimmed, and probably should have only one date entry, so far. I'd go for the air strike. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The airstrikes at the Ayn al-Asad military base are also notable as well, as it was covered by multiple media sources, so that should be kept too. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 14:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

So yeah January 1, 2,3,4,5, 7,8, 9 all have events under them, not just one but each multiple and such will be the case with all 365 days in the year, and 2020 will be the most eventful year in history, surpassed by 2021, that by 2022 and so on just because new users love adding every single events with the logic "it has modern sources", as though floods worse than the Indonesian flood this year didnt happen in earlier years and didn't kill more (1000s) of people but were not included because internet had fewer users then and most sources were not internet based. For example the 2005 Mummbi flood in India killed 700 + Maharashtra floods of 2005 people but isnt included in the 2005 articles as baby users adding every single events now werent born then. Does that make 2020 more important than earlier years like 2000 and 2010? Nope. January 2002 had only three dates and under them there were only 1 events, does that mean 2002 was less eventful than 2020? August 2002 just had one event noted the whole month, yet so many important things happened [[1]]. In 2010 , the 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes killed over 1000 people but stuffs like these were not included as they were domestic events. There have been worse outbreaks than the Wuhan pneumonia outbreaks in many years but they were not included, and as though outbreaks last a single date January 9.In 1973 the Yom Kippur War happened, but it didnt feel necessary to add every single dates and events of that event as done with the 2020 persian gulf crisis here, maybe because that was before most users here were born? Wikipedia years articles have become a day by day news coverage rather than actual articles and most intellectual editors left and most editors now a days act like school dropouts. What I would consider ideal is build new year articles the same way 2000, 2002, 2010, etc were built, only stating the most significant events with international coverage all over the world. But thats just me. Ah well carry on as you wish to, really nice to see new years becoming more eventful than older ones, only according to Wikipedia that is and its editors (school students), which now includes everything and the year articles since 2018 appear to be a day by day news coverage rather than wikipedia standard articles like 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2010. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You’ve could’ve made this rant without violating WP:CIVIL. Stay on topic, focus on the article, not the editor. ShadowCyclone talk 04:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just hope the quality of the article improves, and 2020 isn't treated as an ultra eventful year full of day by day news coverage and it is written in the same standards as earlier years such as 2002. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Natural Disasters with less that 1000 death toll should not be added as they are domestic events. The Iran Iraq earth quake in 2017 affected two countries so it was an international event and 500 deaths were sufficient. Here people are even adding disasters with less than `100 deaths. Also is it necessary to include every single general elections that happen? And almost every single events in the Persian Gulf Crisis is being added, if such was done in a Vietnam war year like 1969 the page would be added with 10,000+ events of the war alone, thank God its not a "recent year" and only the most significant events of the war were added. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that not every little thing happened in every country should be listed, but still, Wikipedia's meaning is to give information, and as for myself, I'm interested in things happening around the world. I think, that having two different pages for the major events of 2020, and for smaller events of 2020, could be a considerable idea?

I, myself (and I'm not the only one, I know) have made a document for events (smaller ones too) around the world since 2010. And because I don't read every country's media, Wikipedia's "year" -articles are the best source for me. Armaanikaks (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

John Lewis is relevant enough to be added to the Deaths section

The addition of John Lewis was reverted by a user with an edit summary explanation of "we should refrain from including local politicians of any country to this page unless they served as heads/deputy heads of government/state or achieved special notability internationally". However, John Lewis is much more well-known as a prominent and influential civil rights leader/activist than as a politician. Pretty sure he's relevant enough to be added to the Deaths section of the 2020 page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. John Lewis wasn not just a representative, he was a civil rights leader famous around the world. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Being a civil-rights leader of international renown, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and numerous awards, recognized as one of the great human rights activists of our time, John Lewis is MORE than relevant enough. His removal from the page is biased and misguided, and his inclusion is necessary to a person of his impact. The man who organized student nonviolent protests across the nation as the freedom rides and lunch counter sit ins gained support, the man who led the marches on Bloody Sunday in Selma, John Lewis is a man of special notability. To think otherwise is to ignore his incredible spirit and legacy. (User:DroboBrandegee 00:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the points made such as being the recipient of a Medal of Freedom, or “national mourning acknowledged by three Presidents”. These points are completely irrelevant for his inclusion on this page, which goes to the concern that Wikipedia and the yearly articles are far too US-centric and US-biased in general. There’s been far too many cases of American Congressional politicians being added to this page with very little notability outside the United States - while politicians of a comparable stature in other countries are excluded. However, with all that being said, a consensus seems to have formed that John Lewis should be included on the basis of his work as a civil rights leader and activist - and that his stature internationally, which has since been demonstrated in the wake of his passing, stems from this. On that basis I now side with the consensus in favour of including him on this page - though not so much for an image inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep. I don't live in the USA, but I can see he's a notable figure. He was featured prominently on BBC News and other news sites here in the UK. People who edit 2020 need to stop being so obsessed with deleting everything. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he has, and I agree he should stay. But we are too US-centric and that's why we need to review additions and remove doubtful entries. Deb (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are too US-centric, but I'd just note that Lewis is so notable that a discussion about whether a blurb about his death should appear on the ITN part of the Main Page has only just closed with a narrow consensus against. This is not the person to have the US/anti-US discussion about. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Tim Smith

There seems to be some dispute about whether Tim Smith of The Cardiacs should be included in the Deaths section. I'm British and was into the music of the 1970s but I've never heard of either Smith or his group. Black Kite, please could you explain why you think he should stay? Deb (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Well ... his death was only announced a few hours ago, and so far I see obituaries on the BBC, every major British newspaper, Pitchfork, Billboard, Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, Finland, Russia, Italy, Canada, Ireland, Australia ... Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cardiacs were the very definition of a cult band. They had fans all over the world because they were, well, pretty unique (as you'll see if you nip off to YouTube and search for, as an example, "Tarred and Feathered"). This is another example of people removing stuff purely because (no offence, I totally understand why) they hadn't heard of them. Black Kite (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

BBC? Are you sure? Deb (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Black Kite (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. How come no articles in other languages though? Deb (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

in spanish, dutch, German, lenta.ru also has an article in russian but I'm not going to go through SBL to get it whitelisted for this purpose and I'm sure there are plenty of others if you change your language settings. For native english speakers, the default is likely to show english...Praxidicae (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never even heard of this guy and even I'm able to find sources...Praxidicae (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean on other wikipedias, not on music websites. Deb (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because no one has taken the time to write it? It's absurd to have this as a "requirement" especially when it's not abundantly clear to even experienced editors. The lack of inclusion on other projects is entirely irrelevant to this when it's clear that there is a universal notability. Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a requirement. But if someone has fans around the world and is internationally known, you would expect there to be articles on other wikis. You've never heard of him, I've never heard of him, and as Black Kite says, cult bands are by definition less well known than some other bands. So what is it that makes it appropriate for him to be here? I think it's a reasonable question. Deb (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Question: what would happen if I went back through 2020 and removed every entry that didn't have an obit from, say, more than 10 countries? Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of him because it's not my style of music. It doesn't mean he isn't notable and suitable for inclusion here. The band for which he receives his notability, Cardiacs has 8 or 9 entries on various other projects. Why is it inappropriate here? And you didn't say it but another editor who is gatekeeping this article implied it three times. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I also don't understand why anyone is quibbling over this. Anri Jergenia is so questionable that we even have it tagged for verification and has, what, 5 entries? Praxidicae (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I quibble all the time, as you'll see in previous discussions, because I think the list gets unmanageable if we include every person that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I didn't say it's inappropriate for him to be here; I'm asking what is it that makes it appropriate to have a name here that doesn't seem to be internationally known or even well-known in his home country. Deb (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked through the 2020 deaths and over 50% of them have less worldwide coverage than Tim Smith. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Black Kite, I assume you are talking about off-Wiki. But that's a "STUFF EXISTS"-type argument. In general, would you argue for keeping a minor entertainer rather than the prime minister of a small country who might not be known worldwide? Deb (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

PS. If it helps, I don't see much justification for including Francisco Rodríguez Adrados either - and he has articles on several other Wikis. Deb (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already warned User:MrMimikyu1998 as they have been disruptive on this page recently anyway (i.e. removing John Lewis). I'm not sure what the motivation of others is. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 July 2020

Could the following fact be added for the day 22-07-2020:

The United States orders the closure of China's consulate in Houston. Morgan Ortagus, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of State, says that the United States directed the consulate's closure "in order to protect American intellectual property and Americans' private information". The Chinese government condemns the "outrageous and unjustified" move and threatens countermeasures against the United States. (Al Jazeera) Freedom.to.distribute.information (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see how things develop before we decide how internationally significant this is. Deb (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This page is no longer protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability of certain events

Should "Taal Volcano in Luzon erupts, forcing evacuation and disrupting air traffic." be added or left off?

Should "King Salman issues a royal decree, declaring that people will no longer be executed in Saudi Arabia for crimes they were convicted of when they were minors." be added or left off?

Should "Protests erupt in major cities across Lebanon for the second day over the country's continuing economic problems. Banks and vehicles are set on fire, and clashes between the protestors and the army in Tripoli leave around 40 soldiers wounded." be added or left off?

Should "Thousands of people protest outside the House of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia in the capital Belgrade, in response to President Aleksandar Vučić's plan on introducing stricter lockdown measures in Belgrade, due to the rising number of COVID-19 cases in the city." be added or left off?

Should "Venezuela will hold the 2020 Venezuelan parliamentary election." be added or left off?

I'm not familiar enough with most of these to personally know their significance. For the Lebanon protests though, it shouldn't be included considering the fact that there have been many protests this year and this is not notable enough relative to the other ones covered. For the Serbia protests, is that a lot of protesters relative to the others? It feels like that. Also, for the Venezuela elections, does this have some significance relative to the political crisis in the country or is this just the same old? In any case, would appreciate someone else's opinion or thoughts on these events importance's. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The King Salman royal decree is notable, and a significant cultural milestone for Saudi Arabia. Not sure about the other entries. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Reposting King Salman's royal decree. Thanks Wjfox2005. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

About the 2020 Venezuelan parliamentary election I think are a really important elections (even more in Latam), form an important event of the current crisis in Venezuela, we're not talking about a normal and simple parlamentary elections. Venezuela at this moment is not a normal country, is a country with a refugee crisis, it's a nation with 2 partially recognized administrations (or inclusive 3). And the most important thing of this is that: the Assembly is the only public power with recognition by more of 60 countries. So, for these and many more reasons more I believe it should be added. That's all. --Mauriziok (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree on that one, because of the current volatile situation in Venezuela. Deb (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that atleast the volcano eruption should be kept, and the Serbian protests too, maybe. I'm not too familiar with the Lebanese ones so I can't say should they be left off.

One thing that maybe is a bit misleading, is that "Taal Volcano in Luzon erupts, forcing evacuation and disrupting air traffic" sounds like it was just a small eruption, and like nothing didn't actually happen except air traffic was little disrupted. No, that's not all, thousands of people lost their homes, at least 39 people were left dead, air traffic was disrupted. I don't think that's just a "minor" -event.

And for the Serbian protests, they (plus Bulgarian protests) are a big thing in the European media at least.

My final opinion is that keep the volcano eruption, other people can discuss wether the others should be left off. :) Armaanikaks (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Deb and Armaanikaks for your feedbacks. Yeah, their role in the Venezuelan crisis 100% warrants inclusion on this page, so I'll re-add it. Also, thank you Armaanikaks for telling me about how serious the Taal eruption was. I thought it might be some minor eruption with no physical damage. The damage it done definitely makes this notable enough for this page. For the Serbian protests, I think I'll try to combine it into 1 event with the Bulgarian protests since both are similar and together are notable. It seems the only event that needs further consideration is the Lebanese protests. Thank you all again for the feedback, I'll re-post the events soon. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Regis Philbin

Should Regis be considered notable enough internationally for inclusion here? Have no strong feelings either way, though my impression is that he seems to mainly be notable as a media personality within the US. Would be good to have a consensus in any case. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think he's fine to include. He was mostly notable in the US, but his acting roles mean he isn't completely obscure to a global audience. Indeed, he made the news in the UK/India/Australia/NZ/Sweden, and probably more but I got bored of checking. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Well, I'd at least heard of him though I couldn't have told you what job he did. He's got a lot of entries in other language Wikipedias, which can be an indication. Deb (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Green

Do you think Peter Green’s image should be here for inclusion? I don’t understand how there’s so many images in the deaths section, but I kind of agree with Deb, since I’ve heard of Green until he died and his image shouldn’t be here for inclusion. What do you think? Gar (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think he "deserves" an image but we don't seem to have a decent one available so better not to include him until we have. Deb (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. That’s fair. I’m also annoyed that User:Thescrubbythug choose to have Little Richard’s image of when he was in the height of his career and I told him idk how many times that the image doesn’t match on his profile since I think that’s how it should be when adding in images of people, but I’m not too sure about that. Kyu (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There could be a good reason for that, @MrMimikyu1998:. The licensing for some images means they are not allowed to be used on articles other than the main profile, so you can't use them in a year article. It may be that the Little Richard image is one of those. Deb (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the Peter Green discussion (of which I've already made my position in favour perfectly clear on my edit summary. I've also added an alternate photo which both me and Deb agree is acceptable) and in response to the point about choice of images, firstly I agree with Deb. Secondly, in a lot of cases famous figures who are older and have been well known for decades tend to have a recent photo of them as the main photo of Wikipedia. Copyright issues is often the reason. Another main reason is that it is usually preferred to have a more up-to-date photo as the main photo for a living person's biography, rather than one that is historical. As Little Richard only recently passed away, this explains why his main photo up to, and as of now has been one of him as a much older man in the late 2000s. But with him now deceased, it should make sense to use a photo of him at the peak of his career, and of which most people remember and think of when they think of Little Richard (and the same goes for everyone else - provided that there's no copyright issues). So I do still believe that the colour photo of Little Richard from the 1950s should be prioritised, provided there's little complaint. In any case, there's no rule for pages like this where we must use the (currently) main photo from the person's profile. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclones

I already added Hurricane Hanna but do you think I should add things like Tropical Storm Cristobal and Tropical Storm Fay? I like hurricanes (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Deb (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay I like hurricanes (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me give a more descriptive and less blunt reason, tropical cyclones that don't leave a lasting impact on affected areas and/or have extensive media coverage aren't notable for inclusion in this article. ShadowCyclone talk 06:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

John Horton Conway

I'd like to argue for removing Conway's photo, simply because it's not a very good one and we don't seem to have anything better. We already have an image of one British mathematician (Freeman Dyson) so it wouldn't affect the balance. Deb (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There's been no objection to this, so I've removed that particular image. Deb (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

People who should be considered for removal from Deaths section

• Michael Angelis, UK actor of minor note, little known outside the UK
• Pau Donés, Spanish musician, little known outside Iberia
• Eppie Wietzes, very minor Canadian racing driver
• Keith Tippett, UK jazz musician, little known outside the UK (or in it)
• Mario Corso, Italian club footballer (not international) (my mistake - I withdraw that suggestion)
• Pierino Prati, another Italian club footballer - not even an international (my mistake - I withdraw that suggestion)
• James Dunn (theologian), UK academic, little known outside his field
• Freddy Cole, US musician, mainly notable for his family connections
• Olga Tass, Olympic gymnast who didn't win any individual medals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

• @Deb: Both Corso and Prati were international footballers (23 and 14 appearances for Italy). Corso managed Inter Milan and Prati scored a hat-trick in a European Cup Final. Freddy Cole was nominated for a Grammy as recently as 2018, but I'm not sure about that one. Keith Tippett was really well known in jazz circles, but I'm aware that's something of a niche. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Thanks for that, @Black Kite:. The international caps normally come under the club caps in the infoboxes but these are above so I didn't spot them. So I withdraw those suggestions. It's good to examine these every so often, though, isn't it? Deb (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • No other comments, so I'll remove the UK names, plus Dones, Wietzes and Tass. Deb (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to update this list a little bit @Deb:, I'd also include as consideration for removal (the majority of which has had the importance tag put on them for a while now):

• Jean Kennedy Smith, American diplomat, main claim to fame is for being the sister (and last surviving sibling) of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy
• Hugh Downs, American broadcaster and television personality, little known outside the United States
• Everton Weekes, Barbadian cricketer, had the importance tag placed on him for a while (personally have little issue with his inclusion)
• Nick Cordero, Canadian actor of minor note, doesn't seem to be notable enough outside North America
• Phyllis Somerville, American actress, also not particularly notable enough internationally
• Regis Philbin, American actor, singer, and media personality, mainly well-known and notable within North America
• Hans-Jochen Vogel, German lawyer and politician, was a significant domestic politician within Germany but not so much internationally (though this could also open debate as to whether or not Opposition leaders who never became Prime Minister/President/Chancellor should be included in these pages)
• Herman Cain, American businessman and politician, mainly gained coverage due to circumstances of death, and has little significance as a businessman or politician outside the United States

--Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• • From my point of view I'd never heard of Downs, Cordero, Somerville, Vogel or Cain, so I would support their removal. Jean Kennedy Smith is a bit different - admittedly she's in the news because she's a Kenndy, but that in itself may be newsworthy. Everton Weekes was quite a big name in cricket - he stopped playing around the time I was born yet I still knew of him. Philbin I'd heard of though I couldn't have told you what he did for a living. Deb (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I did know of Philbin a little bit @Deb:, but almost exclusively because of the American media I consumed (specifically his cameo appearances in The Simpsons and Seinfeld). Nevertheless, I think figures like Philbin are best added in the "Year in Topic" section. I'm sort of torn with Vogel, though lean towards moving him to "Year in Topic" as well. More or less agreed with the rest, particularly with making Weekes the exception due to his significance in the field of cricket. As @Alsoriano97: pointed out regarding Cain, he does have pages in 30+ languages, but I don't necessarily think that should qualify for automatic inclusion - given that American businessmen who (albeit unsuccessfully) run for the Presidential nomination of a major party tend to have an advantage in having articles written about them (while if you apply the same for almost any other nation, the same is simply not the case). Most of the international coverage of his death centred around its circumstances - specifically catching COVID-19 at a Donald Trump rally and subsequently succumbing to the virus. Tragic and perhaps newsworthy, but I stand by that he should be moved to "Year in Topic". There's also Wilford Brimley to consider, who has also just passed - though I lean towards including him. Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I’ve now removed everyone mentioned except for Weekes and Brimley, and moved all of them to their respective “Year in Topic” pages. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

U.S. 5 million COVID-19 cases mark

Should "The United States becomes the first country to record 5 million cases of COVID-19, at least a quarter of the current worldwide total." be added? Dantheanimator (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that should be on 2020 in the United States and COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Jim Michael (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Spanish King Self-Imposed Exile Importance

Should "Former King of Spain Juan Carlos I goes into self-imposed exile amid a financial scandal" be added or left off? I removed this earlier because there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this at all. He isn't even the current king nor was he exiled by the government, but by himself. Would like to get a consensus on this. Dantheanimator (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There are probably other entries in the Events section that are equally non-notable, but I would certainly support its removal unless something more exciting happens as a result. Deb (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Michael Brooks death

Michael Brooks death has been removed twice as of now for the reason and I quote that he is barely known outside the US Which I personally think is not a good reason.

I am creating this new section to prevent edit warring as I fear that if I revert again my new revert would be reverted again.

Maxime12346 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Maxime12346. See the many discussions above. If it was enough for a person to have a Wikipedia article, this section would be identical to "Recent Deaths". Deb (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Martin Birch

I see from Martin Birch's (rather short) article that he was significant in terms of British music but, despite the many articles in other-language Wikis, I'm not convinced that his international notability is great enough to include him in the Deaths section. Deb (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And I'd say the same about Pete Way. Deb (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with you about Way. I'd say Birch is notable enough however, we are talking top of the field in his profession. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take him out until such time as someone makes a case for him. Deb (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Image of Pedro Casaldáliga

User:Alsoriano97 has twice restored an image of Pedro Casaldáliga in the deaths section, which on my desktop causes an overflow beyond the end of the section. However, he writes: "I don't know from what support you have Wikipedia open, but there is even space to add this photo, or any other, at least from the Desk mode. I will not debate whether this photo should be put here because another user posted it and did not generate any type of complaint, so acceptance is tacit." I see that on my laptop there isn't an overflow, but on my desktop there definitely is. Alsoriano has declined to discuss this on the Talk page so I would like to know what other editors are seeing. Also, do others think that an image of Pedro Casaldáliga is "deserved"? Deb (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• It overflows for me as well (as does the image before it, slightly). Casaldáliga is fairly notable but I would say the the two that are there already from August are the two really notable August deaths (though you could make an argument for Julian Bream). If we get an obviously more notable death while there is still a lack of room, it should be replaced. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • User:TDKR Chicago 101 has replaced the image again, still claiming that there is no overflow. Deb (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Deb, Alsoriano97, and TDKR Chicago 101: I think I've worked the problem out.
  • This is what I see on Firefox. Clearly no room.
  • This is what I see on Chrome. No problem!
• So ... what do we do when it works for some and not others? Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• • What I see from your message is two girls in bikinis! But on Chrome, what I see is ... dammit, how do I insert a screen print here? Anyway, it's different from what you are seeing. Deb (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ben Cross

User:Unknown artist has added Ben Cross in the Deaths section. Although he was in a lot of films, I would argue that he wasn't a top-ranked actor. Despite Chariots of Fire, he wasn't a household name in the UK so I doubt he was widely known internationally. Deb (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Borderline, IMO. Has quite a few articles in other wikis. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue he's sufficiently notable for an entry, more or less as Black Kite said. His main claim to fame is of course Chariots of Fire, though that was by no means his only notable role. That said I don't think he should have his image put up at all. I think a bigger issue is the consistent adding of domestic politicians with little notability or relevance outside their country - most recently Slade Gorton, a former US Senator who was immediately added here by User:Unknown artist rather than 2020 in the United States. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wayne Fontana

I was a big fan of Wayne Fontana but I intend to remove him from the Deaths section as he had little notability outside the UK. Deb (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of the main musicians who passed away in August that were in contention for a spot here - Fontana, Pete Way and Frankie Banali - I would have said that Fontana was most deserving of a spot given his status as a frontman and the hits under his name. He *was* primarily well-known in the UK, but his hits also had notability elsewhere, such as Europe and Australia. That being said, these days he isn't exactly one of the more well-remembered British Invasion artists - nor is he an inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So overall I wouldn't have minded having Fontana included, though can understand if there's a consensus for his removal. In general though, I think a good rule of thumb especially with rock musicians of his era is to include them if they are a RRHOF inductee; add an image if they are a significant member of an inducted band; and for non-inductees we judge on a case-by-case basis. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the RRHOF (or, more precisely, I wouldn't use absence from the RRHOF) as any type of notability indicator, given the justifiable criticisms of it that it ignores whole genres of music and that only 8% of its inductees are female. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting, as it's always seemed to me that it takes very little to be allowed into most of these "Halls of Fame" :-) Deb (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The whole "genres of music omission" is debatable given that when it comes down to it, it really ought to be a *Rock and Roll* Hall of Fame (though there are definite issues of subgenre under-representation, such as with progressive rock), while the lack of female inductees are more of a reflection on how male-dominated these genres generally are rather than a reflection on the actual Hall of Fame. Genres that aren't rock - such as jazz, funk, hip-hop, country, etc. - are of course a completely different story. But speaking particularly of musicians to do with rock music and its subgenres, induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a good indicator of notability and/or significance - while rock musicians who have not been inducted should be judged on a case-by-case basis. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Laura addition

Should "Hurricane Laura makes landfall in Louisiana, making it the most powerful hurricane in terms of wind speeds to strike the state, tied with the 1856 Last Island Hurricane" be added/kept off?

It definitely is historic for Louisiana, but that's the issue, only for Louisiana. If it were historic for the whole Gulf region of the U.S. or at least a few other states, then it would be more notable I would argue. If events were added solely on whether they were historic in their state/province/oblast/town/etc, then many minor and other events that wouldn't be usually added would be added. Let me know your thoughts on the notability of this particular hurricane. Dan the Animator 19:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Deb (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing lesser figures

User:Alsoriano97 apparently believes that all international footballers should be placed in the Deaths section of this page, even when they don't appear on any Year in Topic page. Of the 28 footballers currently on this page, I propose removing the following:

• Pietro Anastasi - only 25 international caps, little international notability
• Radomir Antić - only 1 international cap
• Peter Bonetti - England's reserve goalkeeper, seldom the bride
• Theodor Wagner - lots of international caps but little notability outside Austria. His whole article only contains 5 lines of text.
• Joaquín Peiró - only 12 international caps
• Juan José Pizzuti - only 12 international caps

I'll be back with more proposals on this. Deb (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the debate in the right place. Let's see what other users thinks. Greetings. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

And:

• Arturo Chaires - only 22 international caps; his article has only 2 lines of text
• Mario Corso - only 23 international caps
• Harry Gregg - did play internationally, but mainly known for surviving the Munich air disaster
• Ardico Magnini - only 20 international caps
• Pierino Prati - only 14 international caps
• Michael Robinson (footballer) - only 24 international caps, little international notability

Note how Italy, Spain and the UK dominate the entries.

Also some minor actors that Alsoriano97 restored:

• Derek Fowlds - all his major roles were in programmes well-known in the UK but little-known outside the UK
• Philippe Nahon - four-line article tagged for verification

Please give views on these. Deb (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

None of them seems to be notable enough for this page. The footballers are certainly not. --McSly (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That you do not know them does not mean that they lack the necessary notableness. Are you going to tell me that someone who has more than 25, 15 or 20 pages on Wikipedia and his death has been reported by large newspapers in other countries is not relevant? It's just do the same job that I have done. ¡Pardiez! Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You're just adding everyone who dies, which will make the page even more unmanageable than it already is. Concentrate on those with international notability. Deb (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point. Who's adding everyone who dies? As I said above, I'm just adding the ones "that [...] has more than 25, 15 or 20 pages on Wikipedia and his death has been reported by large newspapers". Because I dedicate myself to research a little, whatever country they are from.. "Everyone"?, come on, you don't know my work then If you affirm this. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's too many. These days every man and his dog has entries in different language Wikipedias - especially European footballers who by the very nature of their activity are known to football fans in lots of European countries. Creating articles in different languages is also a well-known tactic used by some editors to get "their" articles more widely accepted. I realise we can't go back to the original target of no more than 50 births and/or deaths in each year article, but the sprawling mass of nonentities who are now listed is just not manageable. Deb (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Protect this Article?

I have concerns that trolls will put in misinformation into this article. Even if they don't do things like spam, I fear that people will try to put misinformation on this article for political reasons (misinformation about what is really going on, who does what, incorrectly stating peaceful protests as violent riots, incorrectly stating shooters and murderers as having been a victim, etc.), malicious reasons (to misinform the public about COVID-19, to denounce mask wearing, to stir up chaos and divide people, etc.), and other reasons one might have to put misinformation in an article about events in 2020.

Given these concerns, can we have the article protected so that changes can only be made by people who are proven to be responsible and honest? We could make it so that the public can only suggest changes, and have moderators to keep the talk page troll-free.

So, could we have the 2020 article protected?

Damariobros (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. In practice, this article is a mess: random users adding or deleting things they shouldn't, or anonymous people vandalizing it. It must be protected. This and those of previous years. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose while I do agree with you and Alsoriano97, protecting this article isn't actually too helpful. Aside from the bots who undo the most egregious and obvious of vandalism, this page is watched/edited daily by many users. If someone edits this page for malicious reasons, then at least 1 editor will notice it and revert it. In the past these pages were protected in the weeks coming to the New Year. I think it should be the same for this year. Dan the Animator 17:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Belarus Presidential election & subsequent protests

Is this sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the events section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy3456 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think so. Deb (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

They're only notable enough for inclusion if there's a change of government. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done protests and election were posted as 1 event by another user already. The protests set a record for the country, which is notable in itself. Dan the Animator 17:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020

Please editǃ 14.199.204.191 (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Importance tags in the wrong places

Instead of tagging Lou Brock for importance, a famous baseball player and a Hall of Famer, why not tag Dragoljub Ojdanić, who basically has a semi stub of an article and from a google search the majority of the news of his death are from Serbian websites. Sumner Redstone was famous as well, just because they're American doesnt make them not important. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Same person who marked them for importance has now completely removed Lou Brock. They also removed Tom Seaver's notation of being a hall-of-famer. Hall of fame athletes should be important enough to note their death on this page, right? (Speaking of, Al Kaline (Deceased April 6) is missing from this page). Tanman2001 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Have a bit of perspective. A US Hall of Fame means nothing to non-US readers; it seems to me they let anyone in. Think about the baseball players in terms of their relative contribution and international reputation before suggesting that all of them should be included in the Year page. As yet, you haven't even included them in the Year in United States page. Deb (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

War criminals or baseball players, how can we possibly choose? Oh well, guess we'll go with the war criminals then. I guess this is all a perspective thing, obviously you don't follow baseball so naturally you'll question their inclusion. And I'm not from Serbia so I won't know why Serbian war criminal Dragoljub Ojdanić would be selected over a baseball player who achieved the highest honor in the sport. Yes, baseball isn't technically an international sport like football. So if you want to say we shouldn't include players on those grounds that's fair. But if the hall-of-famers don't make the cut, no baseball player should. No other reasonable perspective you can put on that. 03:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, Think about the baseball players, and the war criminals, in terms of their relative contribution and international reputation before suggesting that all of them should be included in the Year page Deb (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add under deaths

• August 14 – Angela Buxton, British tennis player (b. 1934)

Not much international notability, in my opinion. Deb (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

2403:6200:8813:92A2:B4DA:453:926:E491 (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear what you want us to change. Please state it in the change x to y format and we would be happy to change it for you! HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Gale Sayers

Since there seems to be some issue with him being listed on this page i thought i'd make a post. Worth noting he has a Bitannica entry (not every day for your average gridiron player to be in a international major work of official canonical history) [2] and surely a Britannica listing is a nice bar for entry on a less official list like this one. Either way let's go through the rest of the entries here from September and see if they have a Britannica listing and are in one of the official canons of history, just for fun.

1. Vladislav Krapivin does not have a entry
2. Erick Morillo does not have one
3. David Graeber does not have one
4. Kang Kek Iew does not have one
5. Adrianus Johannes Simonis does not have one
6. Annie Cordy does not have one
7. Gary Peacock does not have one
8. Joe Williams does not have one
9. Marian Jaworski does not have one
10. Jiří Menzel has a directory listing [3]
11. Vaughan Jones has one, although death isn't updated, hardly a priority it seems [4]
12. Dragoljub Ojdanić does not have one
13. Abdul Qadir Bajamal does not have one
14. Ronald Harwood does not have one
15. Alfred Riedl does not have one (local sportsman?)
16. Shere Hite has a directory listing [5]
17. Alan Minter does not have one (local sportsman?)
18. Diana Rigg has one [6]
19. Toots Hibbert has a directory listing [7]
20. Bill Gates Sr. (who is surely not a world historical figure himself) obviously does not have one
21. Momčilo Krajišnik does not have one
22. Moussa Traoré has a directory listing [8]
23. Winston Groom (who has a picture) does not have one
24. Terry Goodkind does not have one
25. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has one, obviously [9]
26. John Turner has one [10]
27. Lee Kerslake does not have one
28. Michael Chapman does not have one
29. Tommy DeVito does not have one
30. Michael Lonsdale does not have one
31. Agne Simonsson does not have one
32. Road Warrior Animal does not have one

So out of 32 people listed, only 8 have a mention and 4 are full articles (Like Sayers). Does not make sense to not list him. Seems this list would be more based on personal opinion and call it into question then if someone in one of the more major Encyclopedias cant make it into a lesser one like this while all these other people do not have a entry in the Britannica and yet are listed here. If someone has a Britannica they clearly should be listed here imo. Either way, just thought i'd run through everyone since he was removed (i restored him). It could be fun to go through the whole year too.

PS, Britannica's search engine is apparently blacklisted so i couldn't source them not being listed, but y'all can always check for yourself.

• This list is weird, Regis Philbin has a Britannica too but is not listed. I just cannot see the logic in people making the Britannica but not here, especially when we list so many people not in the Britannica lol. I wonder how many other noteworthy people have been removed on a personal whim. [11]
• On the note of Juliette Gréco being added (and Ewa Demarczyk/Nexhmije Pagarusha being listed), it's worth noting that somehow localized (by language) singers get added when it's Europe but not figures like Didi Kempot who's popular in Indonesia with some appeal in Netherlands and Suriname but he is not listed and would probably get the "too local" reasoning, yet Indonesia has more population (267 mil) than France (67mil), Kosovo (2mil) and Poland (38mil) combined and doubled. It seems there's a massive bias towards European countries more than American and this "too local" rule is too restrictive to any other people than in the Schengen area which gives European countries a massive assumed "international" bias. The criteria should be in consideration of massive national importance, especially if that country has a massive population. GuzzyG (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Gale Sayers was removed because he is a figure that is obscure outside of the United States, and who played a sport that isn't widely played outside the United States - this is reflected by the relative lack of language articles that he has on Wikipedia compared to many of the other entries here. Wikipedia - and its yearly pages - already has a bad enough issue when it comes American bias and over-representation, which is reflected for example with political figures, where upon their passing they are automatically added onto the main yearly pages while the same almost never happens for figures of any other country (I'm talking mainly about local congressmen and Senators, and Presidential candidates who were third party or failed to win party nomination who had little to no significance internationally). There are also issues with too many sports figures (of any nation) being added onto the yearly lists, which Deb has been working on cutting down, as you can see in this Talk section. But anyway, I've put an importance tag on Gale Sayers for the time being to allow users to give their two cents on whether or not he should stay on, or if he should be confined to year in topic (2020 in the United States - which for the record nobody including yourself has added him to yet). Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to get rid of any entries that aren't also listed in Britannica, with maybe one or two exceptions, eg. Joe Williams (Cook Islands politician), because of the Prime Minister title, even though the Cook Islands are tiny. I would have nominated Minter for removal myself until I checked his article and found he had actually held a major championship title - but really he's only well-remembered in the UK because of his catchphrase. Deb (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I don't necessarily think that those that aren't listed in Britannica should automatically be removed. Ultimately, it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First things, Corbin Bleu has 216 wikidata languages, so that's not a accurate tool of measurement and since Sayers prime is in the 1960s it makes sense that he does not have the same data as a modern pop star and i'm not from the US, but i've seen Brian's Song, but more importantly working on creating my own biographical dictionary of the 100,000 most important people, so am up to date on most figures people can name and this guy is at this sports peak (as shown by him being in a major British Encyclopedia, one regarded as canonical in the encyclopedia industry, so he is permanently in history). The "too local rule" is a bad way to go for history, because most people are too local and are restricted by language. It favours European countries because they share a commonish culture, which every country around the world generally does not (except in Latin America and some cases Latin culture in the US) and English language art is more mass marketed due to it being the number one language of international tabloid culture, so it'll be favoured more. Regine Velasquez, Dolphy, Nora Aunor and Francis Magalona are not worth any less just because they're only known in their culture, the fact is that they are significant figures in the art history of their country and that lasts longer than a wider international base but no strong connection or importance to a local scene. Sayers is a pre dominant figure in the pre dominant sport of the most sports crazy country in the world and that counts for something. Dean Jones (cricketer) is not widely known in his country, the fanbase cricket has in England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and India does not automatically transfer importance to him, especially if he is not widely known in Australia. Bert Newton is and even more important to Australian culture itself than a figure like DBC Pierre, but Newton would be removed as too local and Pierre wouldn't, to take out importance for wider international assumed appeal means nothing if we're adding figures not widely known anywhere just because they're in occupations with international appeal. in Deb's case it'd like be saying Morecambe and Wise is less important to British culture than Anna Burns because Burns has won a major award and Morecambe and Wise are only big in the UK. It's just ludicrous. The Britannica does not even have a a listing for Hulk Hogan, that's how strict it is and yet we list Road Warrior Animal and that is not questioned with a snarky "importance?" tag, yet someone that a more professional and less opinion based encyclopedia has listed has that tag.

It's funny everyone skipped over the Didi Kempot point, because he is a regional figure in his own country and makes music in the Javanese language and yet Juliette Gréco which supposedly has unquestioned international appeal due to being French has unquestionably less interest in her work compared to his. Searching youtube by views, Greco's highest hit has 1.5 million views [12], Kempot's has 52mil [13], heck a American's cover of Kempot has 875k views [14], so the current day interest does not favour Greco, but her place of birth makes people assume she's worth more because of how Europe is set up and people like Kempot are regarded as irrelevant and only local fame, even if that local fame has more people than double of Grecos. You say this list favours Americans, but it only favours Europe and bland fields like politicians, soccer players, actors, writers and European/American singers because they're bland enough to have a lil fame everywhere but importance nowhere, as shown by people like Winston Groom who is not a major figure in literature's history but goes on here because of a assumed international importance. Even though the international scene of American football is obviously non existant, who do you think will last longer in American culture, a greatest player of the top, national sport or a writer who had one box office hit who nooone know his name, a 1960s football player [15] almost doubles Groom's views [16]. Senators and third party candidates are irrelevant, they're not the top tier of American politics (presidents are), this guy is the top tier of American sports, he certainly fits. Ma Long is a one country sport player and yet a household name to a billion people and his sport being in the olympics does not automatically mean he is important internationally and yet if we dismiss a billion people because of the local factor that just does not seem right. National "local (yet in another countries top Encyclopedia" iconic figures like Philbin and Sayers are infinitely more important to the history of a country than figures like Tommy DeVito (musician), Terry Goodkind, Winston Groom and Michael Chapman (cinematographer) whose field may have a wider fanbase but mean nothing to any culture. (which is why these figures are not in the Britannica). The only reason other countries figures wouldn't make it like you say is precisely because of your own rule. If American national figures can't make it, how can a Thai or Serbian figure make it when they don't have the mass marketed English media? Christina Aguilar and Ceca (singer) are notable, but they're local and that's why this rule is bad, it creates the own bias it says it fights and leads this list with only bland, irrelevant figures. Cook Islands isn't even a universally recognised independent country, technically it's very local, it's just lucky prime ministers are unquestioned but figures like Laisa Vulakoro and Albert Wendt would not make it and that's a problem.

Either way if this list is questioning important but local figures like Sayers and not people like Bill Gate's father than that's another problem. GuzzyG (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sayers even beats Groom in a ngrams test, despite the fact that athletes are hardly mentioned in books compared to WRITERS and even when Forrest Gump was at it's peak and Sayers had been retired for over 20 years... lol [17] and he also beats many other people listed here, a clear sign of being more "vital". [18]. GuzzyG (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly feel Bill Gates's father should be removed, and I'm even doubtful about Dean Jones because, despite his international record, I follow cricket (though less now than I did in the 1960s and '70s, and would expect at least to have heard of him - but I hadn't. What if we went down the line of removing everyone who doesn't have a mention in Britannica and then debate each of the others individually? It might take a while to achieve consensus on some, but that's the whole point at issue here anyway. Deb (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd support that, Britannica is a very good judge of being in history as a permanent canon of it. If someone in the Britannica does not make this list, while bland European figures do because of Europes integration, certainly someone who is not should not be listed, it should certainly be the line. Head of state and government should be the only automatic entry point besides that. GuzzyG (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I was never in favour of the father of Bill Gates being added, so I'm happy to see him removed. I should also add that Tommy DeVito is on Britannica as part of their page on The Four Seasons - and as a founding and core member of one of the two biggest American rock groups of the early 1960s (along with The Beach Boys), and a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee, I think DeVito should stay on the list but not with an image. I can say as an Australian that Dean Jones was a giant sports figure whose passing made all the major headlines and clogged up my own news feed (hell, I generally don't even follow sports, and I was aware of him) - and coupled with his international notability and reputation as a cricket player, I would be in favour of his inclusion. I would say going forward that I'd agree with the proposal to include anyone automatically who is included in Britannica, but not necessarily exclude people for not being in it - much like what I said further up on this page to do with Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees in that those who aren't inductees should not automatically be removed. Case by case basis is always essential. The only further thing I have to add regarding Sayers is that putting aside all of the debate as to whether or not he should be included on the main page.... nobody has included him on 2020 in the United States. In fact, I've also noticed that page is very poorly updated - with only one figure (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) being included for September on that page. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder whether anyone ever looks at the Year in Topic pages. Or is it that some US contributors just assume that any American is notable enough for the main Year page. Deb (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It could very well be the latter, I'm not sure. American users go out of their way to add figures onto the main page but don't bother with Year In Topic - one user added Slade Gorton not long ago for example, who of course was quickly removed here. But the same user never bothered to add him to 2020 in the United States, and Gorton is still not on said page. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Firm proposal

I propose that we begin the cleanup by removing all deaths where the person doesn't have a Britannica entry, and then debate each new addition? But first list all those who are to be removed so that anyone who wants to speak up for them has the opportunity to do so. Deb (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• I very much oppose this. I think it would be too restrictive, and Britannica seems to be somewhat random about who it includes. As UK examples, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the Opposition were to drop dead tomorrow, they wouldn't need to update their Britannica pages, because they don't have one. As another example, when Jack Charlton died earlier this year, I noticed that he didn't have an entry but Bobby Charlton, arguably the less notable of the brothers, does. Talking of football, how about probably the best player in the Premier League, Mohamed Salah? Nope, no entry. The current No.1 golfer in the world, Dustin Johnson? Nope. Try politicians? The President of the European Council (and former PM of Belgium), Charles Michel? Nope, no entry. I tried music and immediately gave up when Ed Sheeran isn't in there. No, this isn't a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Amongst this year's deaths that don't have an article - Clive Cussler, Bill Withers and Michel Roux amd that's just checking a few at random. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Count me as strongly opposed as well, for the reasons already stated by Black Kite as well as what I said on the Gale Sayers thread. Those who are in Britannica should be prioritised and allowed on the list, but it shouldn't necessarily be the base requirement for a position in these lists at all. While we should definitely work out ways to rectify the flaws on the list, I don't think this would be the appropriate solution. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it was just an idea. BTW, Bobby Charlton is IMO distinctly more famous than his brother. And I see no reason why we should assume that a UK cabinet minister needs an entry. Still.... maybe someone can come up with something better? Deb (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

January 31 The US implements travel restrictions for China https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/

Onlyinyourdreams (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Onlyinyourdreams (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• So many countries have implemented travel restrictions for so many other countries. Is this really news? Deb (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:NOTNEWS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)