Jump to content

Talk:List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Davidwr (talk | contribs)
50,107 edits
m →‎top: {{Copied |from1 = List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements |from_oldid1 = 980178379 |to1 = List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements from organizations |date1 = 02:09, 25 September 2020‎ }}
Line 114: Line 114:
*'''Comment''' I propose that we just end this discussion and close it as support to split, as now that the references are broken the article fails [[WP:V]]. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I propose that we just end this discussion and close it as support to split, as now that the references are broken the article fails [[WP:V]]. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
**[[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]], I agree. Let’s do this. [[User:Lima Bean Farmer|Lima Bean Farmer]] ([[User talk:Lima Bean Farmer|talk]]) 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
**[[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]], I agree. Let’s do this. [[User:Lima Bean Farmer|Lima Bean Farmer]] ([[User talk:Lima Bean Farmer|talk]]) 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' It seems this point is moot now since someone cut this article down by 15%, from nearly 750k to 650k bytes by splitting off the organizations rewinding the clock by 3 weeks to Sept 7th. I think this is acceptable for now as the vast majority of endorsements are already in and the article won't grow by much going forward.[[User:ZombieZombi|ZombieZombi]] ([[User talk:ZombieZombi|talk]]) 16:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


== Notability ==
== Notability ==

Revision as of 16:03, 25 September 2020

JIll Biden's endorsement

Is it relevant to include her? Obviously no wife is gonna to publicly go against her politician husband when he seeks high office. Same with any other close family members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.14.202.87 (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If she’s notable and not the candidate herself, then yes, it is relevant. It’s not that obvious, look at the Conways. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Not clear about that, since on the Trump endorsement page, several of his family are listed, but I only see Jill Biden here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on if they actually endorsed him. If you have a reliable source saying his son or any other family member endorsed him, feel free to add it. We include and exclude based on Wikipedia:Political endorsements, not their relationship to the candidate. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Spencer

https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/1297439514244214784?s=20

should this be included? Kingofthedead (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Twitter links. Rusted AutoParts 23:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that's not an WP:ENDORSEMENT. - MrX 🖋 23:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wtf is this IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IosifDzhugashvilli, what exactly are you asking? This is a talk page with questions and answers. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lima Bean Farmer, you do know who this mf richard spencer is, right? IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IosifDzhugashvilli, according to Wikipedia’s description he’s “ an American neo-Nazi,antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist who is known for his activism on behalf of the alt-right movement in 2016 and 2017”. According to Newsweek, he endorsed Biden. According to the Times of Israel, Biden campaign rejected the endorsement. Is that what you’re asking about? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lima Bean Farmer, I do know who Richard Spencer is, but thank you for the elaboration. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

IosifDzhugashvilli, you’re welcome. I would just like to point out that you seem to be using this talk page to state your personal opinion, which should not be done. You’re more than welcome to state your own opinion on your user page. Using the adjectives above, as well as the article you linked to may also be a living persons violation. Let me know if you have any further questions. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

I propose that this article be split into a separate pages for political and non-political endorsements due to how long this article is. This was done with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Numberguy6 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very long article and would be best if split. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is really long and will likely only get longer. Nojus R (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is literally the biggest article on Wikipedia at 603KB.  Nixinova   T   C   07:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tent has grown too large. --Colin dm (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Every single endorsement page in history, including Obama in 2008, except for HRC in 2016, has 1 page. Organizing the page is a better option. There is a reason that this is the longest page and Biden has unprecedented amounts of support. This should be emphasized in one page, as all other endorsement pages have done. The length isn't an issue unless there is too much information of different types. This is all the same type of information, just a lot of it, that needs to be organized. No reason to split one topic, into two, when that isn't done for any other candidate. Either all pages are split for political and non-political endorsements, or non. Since all but 1 are not split, this shouldn't be either. ZombieZombi (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SIZERULE, this article is more than six times the minimum "Almost definitely should be divided" size. --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important to note that this article is less than 70,000 bytes away from surpassing the combined size of both Hillary Clinton 2016 endorsement lists, and as the election season heats up, I predict that this list will only get longer. --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant as only about 10% of the endorsements are non-political so splitting the page would do almost nothing. Also, "almost definitely" means "not definitely" because not all cases fit, as particularly in this case where splitting wouldn't make a difference, and organizing is a much more prudent way forward. ZombieZombi (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ZombieZombi JTLYK you forgot Obama in 2012 page Lexikhan310 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nowhere near enough non-political endorsements to warrant a separate page. Splitting it only creates inconsistency with previous elections and does nothing to cut down on size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.215.33 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Splitting it doesn't prevent the new article from being smaller as only 10% of endorsements are non-political and other endorsement pages are only 1 page long as well. --AndreDaGamer (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Splitting the two pages will still make the articles long, I don't see a good reason why it should be split.--Animaileditor (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Separating non-political endorsements wouldn't solve the problem of clutter. Non-political ones are a very small section of the page. Tipsyfishing (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every other presidential endorsement pages have been only one page, and splitting it by political/non-political wouldn't solve the problem. --CoryJosh —Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the page is too long to read and navigate comfortably (and a lot of these people don’t need to be listed.) but ultimately, for the readers’ sake, they’re all coming for the same thing. Trillfendi (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WP:SIZE applies to prose. Given the nature of this article, a far greater portion of it is devoted to references over prose than what would normally be the case. Currently, I do not think it needs to be split. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a little less then 1000 links. I do support splitting this article, but let's wait Lexikhan310 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly oppose this idea. 15.25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - We shouldn't worry about size unless there are consistent loading problems. WP:SIZERULE is outdated and should not be applied to list articles unless there are other compelling reasons. - MrX 🖋 13:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The article is a bear to navigate, even on good wifi. It would be much better to split it up, even if it would dethrone it as the largest Wikipedia article. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose As long as you have a table of contents, there should not be much of a problem, IF 13 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For similar reasons listed above IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong OpposeNot only is it difficult to split it out (is Anita Hill political or no) there is no positive reason for the split. Thalia42 (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Splitting it won't reduce it significantly. --84.212.23.40 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lean toward Oppose: While I fully understand the motivation here, I think that it wouldn't end up accomplishing much. Yes, the article is long, but Joe Biden has received many endorsements. If it is to be two pages, there should be two pages for his opponent Donald Trump. PickleG13 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The opposition comments here do not address or are wilfully ignoring the size problem. This article is clearly too large to fit on one page. This particular proposal is almost certainly just the first split that would be necessary, so it's pointless to argue that this split would not accomplish enough. Far better than not splitting the article at all. An article for non-political endorsements would be well over 150,000 bytes, which simply cannot seriously be considered an article that is too small. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ZombieZombi, AndreDaGamer, Animaileditor, Tipsyfishing, CoryJosh, QoopyQoopy, Trillfendi, Devonian Wombat, MrX, IosifDzhugashvilli, Thalia42, and PickleG13: To those opposed to the split, what solutions do you have for the post-expansion include size issue being discussed at #Split or trimming is now urgent - it is "breaking the Wiki"? Please respond in the thread below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missed one @TovarishhUlyanov: you are in the list above under a previous username. Please chime in below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support split. I was not previously aware of this issue. I now support a split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QoopyQoopy (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Split If the page is now having loading problems, then in favor of splitting it off. Tipsyfishing (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed split. If the page is having loading issues, I support a split, but Political/non-political is not really feasible, per my prior comment. Persons/Organizations would be an easy split. "Current and former politicians" v. others might work. I still oppose a political/non-political split.Thalia42 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thalia42, there are not nearly enough organizations for this to be a fair split. Instead of non political vs political endorsements, it should be state and federal office holders (of any branch) versus everyone else including organizations. Just my thoughts. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (changing from Oppose), alright, if there are template issues, as opposed to people just having a fit because it has a byte size arbitrarily higher than what they think is right, than I support a split, presumably that split would entail moving sections 11 to 16 to a new article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
davidwr, please do not Canvass. I would oppose this because there is not a clear way to define political and not political. Is Mary Trump political? The Indiana black legislative caucus? What about those running for office in 2020? I definitely agree with splitting the page but first we need a better way to do that. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, a less-than-perfect split is better than no split. Even if a few endorsements were clearly in the wrong article, it would still not be as bad as the current article. In cases where it is arguable or arbitrary as to which article they would belong, then it doesn't matter which article we choose those few minor cases to be. Mary Trump would not be political, while members of legislatures and political candidates would be political though. So unless there are any more cases where it's ambiguous whether they are political or not, there doesn't even seem to be an issue there at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (changing from Oppose) Citations are broken, I support splitting into 2 pages, aka Hillary 2016 Endorsements Animaileditor (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this point is moot now since someone cut this article down by 15%, from nearly 750k to 650k bytes by splitting off the organizations rewinding the clock by 3 weeks to Sept 7th. I think this is acceptable for now as the vast majority of endorsements are already in and the article won't grow by much going forward.ZombieZombi (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Does anyone want to debate the notability of Joanne Rogers or Claudia Conway? I don’t think Joanne is notable at all (personally) but I think Claudia may be. There’s been a lot of back and forth on these two so I just wanted to get the conversation started on the talk page. Thanks! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda depends on the point of adding either of them. I'd imagine Joanne has more folks that'd... care? Then Claudia. And the Rogers name would be more well known then the daughter of the Conway's. Tipsyfishing (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You might be right but Claudia has been in the news a lot recently as well as both of her parents. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Just because someone is in the news doesn't exactly mean too much, ya know? It's a very unique case with Joanne, since her husband was such an icon in US culture, and still kind of is. I bet most regular folks have no clue who the Conway's really are. Tipsyfishing (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're both notable. They are both covered significantly in their redirects. Rogers has been significantly covered in the NYT, LA Times and has appeared in documentaries. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to adding them both back. Does anyone else have any opinions on their notability? If there are no objections I think it would be safe to add these back tomorrow. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with adding them back. QoopyQoopy (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'No. They do not have articles, they are not notable in their own right and per WP:NTEMP, a flash in the pan coverage on a single does not establish notability. They are not notable people in their own right, only by tangential association with actual notable people and do not belong. This page is literally the biggest article on the entire website, we do not need Claudia Conway, age 15 by Beverly Cleary's ringing endorsement. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Therequiembellishere, please come to a new consensus before deletion. We had consensus to add them, so you can’t just say “they’re nobodies” and go against it. I don’t think either of these people follow the guidelines you talked about. As for Rogers, she has been notable enough for a while with everything that she’s done. As for Claudia, she is a social media personality and her comments often get media attention. I think both are not temporarily notable and have enough fame to be on this list. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


And I thought that you discuss here if the topic of this very page is notable. Sigh.

I would delete the page itself, given an RfD. It is a non- encyclopedic list, now the longest aricle. In short, this is what WP should not be.

Refs: https://www.altpress.com/news/wikipedia-longest-article-2020/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages


Ok, they are worse cases there: Insect_paleobiota_of_Burmese_amber

[update: I read this amber paleobiota contender afterwards. I was wrong. It is more encyclopedic and engaging, with the photos of the critters etc. See below.]

List of Red vs. Blue episodes

...

Sigh again.


Zezen (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zezen, are you suggesting this whole article be deleted? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lima Bean Farmer: Yes, indeed. Of course it would not happen, given the history, so my remark was FYI, to show how I came here. This and similar humongous articles about "support/polls/voices/publications/ of X during the Y election in the Q subdivision of Z" seem next to useless for most Wikipedia readers who are not partisan about politics of X/Q/Z: that is for most of us.

The Insect_paleobiota_of_Burmese_amber from this list seems more interesting, in fact: knowing nothing about its subject matter, I had skimmed a couple of its hard-fact entries there.

See also my related recent comment on Talk of: Talk:Mobile_phone_tracking#Legal_commercial_SIM_based_tracking

giving examples of similar articles missing basic useful info or even modest lists: Mobile_phone_tracking is just one of many, that is.

See also Wikipedia:List_of_encyclopedia_topics and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper for more context and arguments.

Let us move this discussion to my Talk page or a relevant Wiki forum, if you are interested, as it does not pertain to the article itself now.

Bows from a (partial) wiki deletionist ;)

Zezen (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

User talk:Flyedit32, User talk:PintoBean04 and User talk:Therequiembellishere, please use this page to discuss photos to prevent an edit war over pictures. I am not taking sides, because I really don’t care about photos (if it were up to me, there wouldn’t be any photos in articles like this) but I see a back and forth. Please take advantage (especially if you are new) of the talk page before reverting any further photos. Happy editing y’all! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with having four Senators. It seems like it fits fine on most monitors. If I'd have to pick two, I'd lean towards using Lieberman because he was on the 2000 ticket and Flake because he is a Republican. Reid's photo is already on the primary endorsement list. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook citations

For pages like Alaska Democratic Party and Arkansas Democratic Party, there are posts on the official Facebook pages (follows WP endorse) with more explicit endorsements. If anyone is familiar with citing Facebook, please add these. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is not a reliable source, so no. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IosifDzhugashvilli, please see Wikipedia:Political endorsements which states that for organizations, an official social media account can be used as an endorsement. If someone could, please add these. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IosifDzhugashvilli: Please see WP:SELFSOURCE, on the same page, right below the section you cite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be added?

Should this [1] be added as an endorsement? Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-addition of Mayor Michael Taylor

Michael Taylor is the mayor of Sterling Heights, MI, the fourth largest city in Michigan. Plus one of the first Republicans to endorse Joe Biden. He was removed due to the lack of a wiki page. Should he get re-added? Please discuss. Tipsyfishing (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tipsyfishing, I thought there would be more responses by now. Is there a Wikipedia article that talks a lot about him which could be redirected? If there is, I’d support adding him back. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split or trimming is now urgent - it is "breaking the Wiki"

As of September 19, this article exceeds Wikipedia's template post expansion include size limit.

This is causing templates near the bottom of the page to not render properly.

The easiest fix is to either trim the page or split the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay another recent edit brought the page down below the limit. As the page grows, the odds are high that the limit will soon be exceeded. Here is a live list of all articles currently in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
davidwr, I grouped the state senators which saved some room. Even the states with only one didn’t add anything additional. Maybe you’d like to do the same with the state representatives or even the federal congress (I will not be doing that). Also, I would propose, if others agree, to delete the info for senators other than those with ranking positions. They all are ranking members and whips and what not of a million different caucuses and I don’t think it’s necessary to have the information other than state and ranking position if they have one. Anyone else’s thoughts? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start but it wasn't enough, the {{navbox}} template at the very bottom of the page still is not displaying properly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not experiencing the stated problem. Is it happening for other folks?Tipsyfishing (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
davidwr, at least I did something. Try it with state and federal representatives and you’ll save a ton of room Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this recent information, I support trimming or splitting. TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page size

The markup of this page now weighs in at 712,082 bytes - the highest on the project. The page needs splitting, into several parts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it's exceeding Wikipedia's template post-expansion include size, as discussed above. By the way, I made a 1MB test page with no templates, it also exceeds the PEIS limit even though it has no templates. Interestingly, I had intermittent trouble saving the page. I'm not sure if it was just bad timing or if the page size had something to do with it. It was kind of random. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are template issues; that's why this is a sub-section of that section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice you created a sub-section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parser profiling data

As of a few minutes ago, this was the parser profiling data. Note the "Post-expand include size" is at the limit and the "Unstrip post-expand size" is getting close. The CPU time and real time are both over 10 seconds. 

CPU time usage	10.492 seconds
Real time usage	10.990 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count	62,532/1,000,000
Post-expand include size	2,097,062/2,097,152 bytes
Template argument size	15,775/2,097,152 bytes
Highest expansion depth	15/40
Expensive parser function count	7/500
Unstrip recursion depth	1/20
Unstrip post-expand size	4,873,876/5,000,000 bytes
Lua time usage	4.617/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage	7.73 MB/50 MB

Just one more reason to split the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Split Proposal: Organizations v. Individuals

Let's split this into:

Organizations/Federal Office Holders (former & current)/Other Individuals. A three way split should keep it manageable.

A political/non-political split is nearly impossible. What's "non-political" when you're talking about an election?Thalia42 (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be seriously unbalanced, there simply aren't very many federal officeholders to list. Politicians/Non-politicians is a much more logical split, because if we are splitting the article why would we be putting Governors seperate from Congresspeople but together with YouTubers? Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support splitting out organisations, as well as splitting out non-political endorsements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD split to buy time

This may either forestall the inevitable or it may be enough to last through November 3.

What I did:

I moved the entirety of #Organizations to a new page, List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements from organizations.

I also transcluded some sections and parts of sections into the new page so "common" things don't get out of sync.

Finally, I copied references that are now used on both pages and rescued some missing references from versions of this page from earlier this month.

Why did I split it at all without a firm consensus to make any particular split? "Because WP:PEIS" limit was making templates at the bottom of the page not work.


Why did I split it this way and not by political/non-political? Because it's a clear-cut and easy split to make and to un-make even after both pages are updated with new endorsements.

Feel free to revert as part of any "different way to split" decision. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements&oldid=980277421"