Talk:2021

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Death images (Result: not done)

Perhaps it is time to consider not using images in the death section, they are only being used for decoration and dont really serve an encyclopedic value. Readers can use the article link if they want to know what the subjects look like. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I think it would be a boring page, already boring in itself. With images the list becomes more visual, aesthetic and dynamic. The debate is always good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with Alsoriano. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per Alsoriano and TDKR. TheScrubby (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Olympia Dukakis & Norm Macdonald (Result: Dukakis included and Macdonald borderline inclusion)

Mentioned on Talk:2022. Are they internationally notable enough to be included? Jim Michael (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that at one of the participants of this discussion thread was a banned sockpuppet.

Does anyone truly have "international notability", everyone who dies are domestic figures in the countries they come from. The issue with the "standards" here is people think in a purely black and while, pass or fail mentality. It's a spectrum. It can be argued that both Dukakis and Macdonald are notable and not notable simultaneously. Jim, you yourself admitted to don't cross-reference Wikipedia bios with other sources you say. Liam Davenport (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Some people clearly have substantial international notability. Christopher Plummer, who died in 2021, is a good example. He has a high level of international notability, shown from his long list of awards, several of which are very important. People's notability should be clear from their articles. WP editors can't be expected to spend a long time researching each person to see if they may have more notability than is stated in their WP articles. Do you have an opinion on whether or not to include Dukakis & Macdonald? Jim Michael (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Macdonald should stay, I'm neutral on Dukakis. Liam Davenport (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There was already a discussion on Macdonald here where the consensus was in favour of inclusion (I was and remain personally opposed to his inclusion). Dukakis was an Oscar recipient, and has the sufficient notability for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked about Macdonald because he was mentioned multiple times during the discussions about Gilbert Gottfried. Dukakis' awards are all American, so what international notability does she have? Jim Michael (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is there that we include actors/directors who are Oscar recipients (while those who were nominated but did not win are included on a case-by-case basis, usually depending on whether or not they are also recipients of major international film awards), at least so far as those in the English-speaking world of cinema goes. TheScrubby (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

San Miguel del Ene attack (Result: exclusion)

@Agtx: Kind regards,

Regarding the removal of the San Miguel del Ene attack from the article, the following references can be included:

• "Presunto ataque terrorista deja al menos 18 muertos en la selva central de Perú". EFE (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 24 May 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2021.
• "Asesinadas 18 personas en un posible ataque de Sendero Luminoso". Europa Press. 24 May 2021. Archived from the original on 25 May 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2021.
• El Comercio (24 May 2021). "Vraem: 18 personas fueron asesinadas por miembros de Sendero Luminoso". elcomecio.pe (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 25 May 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2021.

Since you haven't specified a policy on notability, I'm not sure what your concerns about notability related to the article are, but the page has independent and sufficient coverage, meeting WP:GNG. An event were eighteen people were killed is clearly notable, and moreover considering that it took place two weeks before the last presidential elections in Peru.

Even though there's not an essay or agreed format on the years articles, however, I understand that a considered aspect for inclusion is the existance of articles of the subject in other languages, another condition that the attack meets: besides English, there are also articles in the Spanish (es:Atentado de San Miguel del Ene de 2021) and French (fr:Attaque de San Miguel del Ene) Wikipedias, as well as in Simple English. Lastly, I have to stress once again that the article was included in the Front Page when the attack happened. As such, the article should meet the criteria for inclusion.

Pinging also @Dunutubble:, who first included the attack. Happy editing! --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. What we're looking for on this page, however, is an internationally notable event. That means not everything that gets a Wikipedia article or even everything that ends up on the "in the news" section of the front page will belong here. From the sources you cited, I'm not sure that this event is sufficiently notable from an international perspective. Interested in others' perspectives, however. agtx 11:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand your position, although the article's inclusion in ITN has not been my main point; international coverage likewise includes the BBC, The Washington Post and Aljazeera. At any rate, I'd like to know what other editors have to say too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's on 2021 in Peru but should be excluded from 2021 due to it being domestic. There's no internationality to it, other than its media coverage; an attack by a domestic group, as part of a domestic insurgency, against fellow Peruvians. International media coverage & being on ITN don't grant inclusion on main year articles. The 2021 Apure clashes & 2022 Peshawar mosque attack are included because of their substantial internationality. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If the article appeared in the Front Page, I would say there seems to be a general consensus of international notability. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't, because that isn't a requirement for ITN. It says on WP:ITN/C to not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic cases reaching 150 million (Result: exclusion)

There is disagreement as to whether or not confirmed Covid cases passing the 150 million mark on April 29th is a milestone event. Seeking additional input here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't see a case for it being an important milestone. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Collage proposal

I’ve proposed this on other Talk pages within other discussions, though I really should have brought it up here in the first place. I propose that for the collage on top of the page, we replace the January 6 United States Capitol attack image with one from the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. The latter was a far more internationally notable and significant event, which saw 250+ people killed and tens of thousands of people displaced. The former barely makes the main yearly page as a borderline inclusion - it was a purely domestic event which was a shambolic, quixotic attempt at a coup that never came close to succeeding, and we already include images of successful coups from 2021 of far greater international notability, such as the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état and the October–November 2021 Sudanese coup d'état. TheScrubby (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Collage depreciation

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Date format

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest.

On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s Marginataen (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It has now been more than a week since I posted my proposal about changing the date format for 2021 to DMY and no one has responded. If one more weeks passes without any response as well, I will consider it consensus and change it to the DMY format. By then, people would have had more than two weeks to respond. Should someone later on object, please discuss it here on the talk page before reverting. Marginataen (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation.

As of last month, only 2023 was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I oppose for that reason.

I would be fine with all generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at WP:VPR#Date format for year articles. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2026 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2101 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2067 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)