Talk:Justice Democrats
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Justice Democrats. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Justice Democrats at the Reference desk. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Justice Democrats article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
|
Propose a splitting of the page
editI am proposing that the list of candidates put forth by Justice Democrats be split off into its own article. There are multiple reasons to support this.
1. I am proposing this as a preparatory measure to ensure this main article does not devolve into just a list of the candidates. In 2018 the Justice Democrats fielded 79 candidates in different races throughout the country. That was when they raised just over two million dollars according to OpenSecrets. Early FEC filings show that the group is very likely to raise a lot more than 2 million in the 2020 cycle. The group's leaders have also stated that more candidates will be put forward in 2020. Considering the group has said that it has received over 8,000 nominations for potential candidates, I think it is not unreasonable to expect the group to field over 100 candidates in 2020. Since we have already established the notability of listing candidates endorsed by the group, I feel a splitting off of the candidates into one or more pages is going to be a necessity to prevent the article from becoming too long to read comfortably.
2. If the midterms were anything to go by, this page will become a vandal magnet, especially if something big happens, so it would be a good idea to isolate the candidate lists, since there are a lot of numbers there, and those are more time consuming to verify. Separating the two pages will also allow for one of the pages to be locked if need be, without having to disturb the other.
3. As of today, half of the table of contents is dedicated to listing the candidates, with over half of the pages byte size being dedicated to these lists and tables. There is also content both above and below the lists of candidates, which makes them feel to me out of place. I think the Justice Democrats article should focus on the group as a whole, with coverage of the candidates being delegated to a sister page.
I have already put together a draft of the page, all I need is some consensus to pull the trigger on this. I feel we are going to have to do this eventually, so I feel it is probably a good idea to do it now, while things are relatively quiet. Doing it now will also allow us as a community to settle on the final form of the page and format, in the event something does not work out, for whatever reason.
Proposed titles: Candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats, List of Justice Democrat candidates, List of Justice Democrats, Candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats, 2018, Candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats, 2020
Please let me know the community's thoughts on this. I wanted to seek consensus before doing anything hasty here, though I think we can all agree the current approach is unsustainable, as is the approach of just listing winners.Firstclass306 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have a few principles here that are fighting one another. I like side bar articles to support the main information. But I generally dislike removing content. Reducing things down to a separate article has the potential to make information disappear. That said, the current article is a difficult read. The list of 2018 candidates dominates while most of them did not get elected and are currently relegated to the wiki dustbin of notability (you don't win, you aren't notable). I'm going to introduce the concept of current relevance. The ones who were elected definitely should be in the main article. They are the ones who are taking the agenda of this group and putting them into practice of their legislative proposals, activities and votes. We can certainly expect this group to put forth a new list of candidates in the next election cycle. Finding out who they are and what they want to do is why people will be coming to this article. To bury that information into a linked article will obfuscate the information from those users simply because most people won't click. Once the candidates lose, move them off to the 2020 list of candidates and make the (still) active list on the main article easier to read. However I suggest we move slowly, like wait a month after the primary to allow slow news readers such as myself a chance to go back and see what happened before the information disappears behind another link. Trackinfo (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- 2018 Justice Democrats candidates, the year is at the front of the title. I would split the full results to another article but I would keep the general election results where applicable. Leave the following table on the article, and we'll do the same after the 2020 elections.
