Talk:2020

Scheduled event (July 17 - Planned launch of NASA's Mars 2020 mission) contradicts with cited source

On NASA's website it is said that the launch window is scheduled between July the 22th and August the 11th, yet on Scheduled it is written that the launch is scheduled for July the 17th. I want to fix that, but I don't know if the launch window should be written on there or a single date, since every other event on that article is a single date.

Collage depreciation

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:54, 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)

The images at the top need to be added back

I don’t know why DementiaGaming would think to remove the images on the page, but they shouldn’t be allowed to, we need them back! I don’t know why the user Deb decided to repeat what DementiaGaming did after a user brought back the pictures, but what Deb did is not good either. Why are many pages like 2009 and 2010 getting their images at the top removed? That shouldn’t happen, they’re informative. Chckl9999 (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Each collage should have consensus, not be based on one person's opinion of what should be included. See the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Proposal_for_a_standardized_process_for_yearly_collage_images Deb (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Date format

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:54, 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) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC) It has now been more than a week since I posted my proposal about changing the date format for 2020 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)