Talk:List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Wgullyn (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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)

Support Very long article and would be best if split. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Support This article is really long and will likely only get longer. Nojus R (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Strong support This is literally the biggest article on Wikipedia at 603KB.  Nixinova   T   C   07:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Support The tent has grown too large. --Colin dm (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ZombieZombi JTLYK you forgot Obama in 2012 page Lexikhan310 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Strong Oppose QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose For similar reasons listed above IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

Strong Oppose Splitting it won't reduce it significantly. --84.212.23.40 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support and quickly. Please make this page smaller. kennethaw88 • talk 04:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Devonian Wombat, I agree. Let’s do this. 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.ZombieZombi (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I have just reverted the split as proposed at the start of this section, since there is no really clear consensus for it yet and we now have three split articles based on individual sections of the main article which have worked nicely. The newly-created articles are redirects back to this one. --Mirokado (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  In any case, the right way to implement this split would probably be to split off the smaller part and rename the larger part, rather than creating two new articles. --Mirokado (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I added a table of section sizes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements#Summary table which could help (first column) decide how to make any further splits. I used a "little script" so I can provide further similar tables if anyone wishes. --Mirokado (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose any splitting of the article will inevitably divulge into a debate where articles should go, and as one or two editors noted above whether an individual can be classified as political or non-political is often not clear. It was also raise the argument if the same should be done for Trump's campaign endorsements and so on. In hope of avoiding WP:LAME I oppose this. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Support split I do agree that this article is too long, and needs to be split, but I think it could be split by section, rather than into political and non-political endorsements. Tommy has a great username (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral - I don't mind a split or a shortening either way. Love of Corey (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. We did the exact same thing with the endorsements for Donald Trump in 2020, and Joe Biden received FAR more endorsements. This is the third longest article in all of Wikipedia, and splitting it up seems like a no-brainer. The Image Editor (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - As a neutral third-party, what's the community consensus for splits? I currently don't have time to count the votes, but the support and oppose votes look to be about evenly split. Love of Corey (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Angela Davis did not endorse Joe Biden

From her June 2020 interview with Democracy Now after being asked about the upcoming presidential election:

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, my position really hasn’t changed. I’m not going to actually support either of the major candidates. But I do think we have to participate in the election. I mean, that isn’t to say that I won’t vote for the Democratic candidate. What I’m saying is that in our electoral system as it exists, neither party represents the future that we need in this country. Both parties remain connected to corporate capitalism. Postfab (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't condense this page.

Please don't condense this page, as it is holding a record of the longest Wikipedia page ever. Deven McEwen (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"Current" officials who have since left office?

What would be the best way to refer to, say, Alberto Fernández, who was President of Argentina at the time of the endorsement but has since left office? Obviously it makes sense to change the "present" next to his entry to 2023, but to list him under the "current" section seems misleading. I think changing "current" to something like "incumbents" seems to be a better description, but I'm open to proposals. Alextheconservative (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)