Talk:Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

This is unnecessary

The earliest event in the 2016 timeline is from November 2014, so I do not anticipate the first announcements for 2020 to be until fall 2018 after the midterms. No, Kanye West is not actually running for president. The inauguration of 2016 winners is not relevant to the 2020 election. Regardless, all of this is entirely redundant to the primary 2020 article, which mentions these non-serious candidates as well. This should be redirected until there is substantive information that necessitates a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 20:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What should be included in this article

I noticed that a couple of withdrawals of potential candidates have been removed. This should not hve been done. The timeline is about what is happening in the campaign. Thus, semi-major events that catch the public's eye, should be included. Take Michael Avenati, for example. After becoming a quasi-celebrity, he announced that he was considering running for president. A couple of weeks later, after he got arrested and a bunch of people came out of the woodwork to denounce him, he withdrew his name. This should be mentioned here. Sen. Jeff Flake and the Mayor of Los Angeles (I forgot his name), also did some stuff in that regard prior to thinking better of it. The coming out rally for Kamala Harris was notable as well, it had 20K people. That should also be included. A second rally probably shouldn't, nor should most other events such as that. The Bernie Sanders sexual harassment scandal should, be included because he's a major hopeful in the race and can materially affect the race as a whole. Biden repeatedly saying "i'm thinking about it" should only be recorded the first time prior to his forming an exploratory committee. IT should be acknowledged, but not ad nauseum. whadda'ya think? Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A few months later, I put up a thing about the Meuller report going public. Mélencron took it down as utterly irrelevant. An incumbent president running for reelection having a major report accusing him of obstruction of justice is NOT irrelevant. It's all over the news. it's relevant as hell. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can't edit politics-related articles without putting your bias aside, maybe you shouldn't? This is a list of election-related events, not a list of every single Trump-related event; there's already separate timelines for that. Mélencron (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias? The Meuller report is a MAJOR issue in the upcoming election. the hearings are not only justice related but political as hell. There are lots and lots of ancillary events going on with Russia that don't belong here, but the big one, the issuance of the Muller report to the public most certainly IS. The consequences of the report are going to dominate the news for the next month, if not the rest of the year. It's a turning point of the campaign. Trump is the prohibitive candidate for the Republican nomination. That is not a "biased opinion" but a stone-cold fact. Nixon going to China in 1972 was not "irrelevant" to the campaign. Nor was Ford's pardon of Nixon irrelevant to the 1976 campaign. The Russia thing is in fact, extremely relevant. The Fox/Sinclair idea that there's "nothing to see here, it's irrelevant" just doesn't wash. The report's release is relevant, but most of the stuff about subpoenas and the like is not. If they vote to impeach, THAT is is relevant too, just as like Comey's letter to the Judiciary committee about finding some of Clinton's emails in Weiner's computer was. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Add a timeline

Could you please add a timeline of every candidate, just like 2016? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:B179:A713:A20A:78B6 (talk • contribs)

• Done, added at the bottom of the page like the 2016 article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's so weird that this timeline doesn't show up for me on Android. Even when I use desktop mode Piratetales (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Split 2019 into a separate page?

Unless we cut some of these 2019 events that really did not have some significant long-term on the campaign, like all the presidential forums that only a few candidates appeared, the 2019 list should be put on a separate page. The section is way longer than what Timeline of the 2016 United States presidential election#2015 has. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The high muckymucks who claim to control these pages don't like splitting very much. However, if Trump is removed from office (fun, but unlikely), and the Republican race is thrown into chaos, probably, but otherwise, not really. What we should be discussing is how to display the results.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment is relevant.

For the first time in 151 years, Impeachment hearings against a President running for reelection will take place. This is not, as was mentioned last April on this page, WP:Crystal, nor bias, nor anything else like that. They will begin before Thanksgiving and dominate the news. These hearings ARE the campaign. A vote in December on whether to impeach Trump will be one of the major events of the campaign and should there be a trial, THAT would be the whole shebang. Lists of candidates will be published by State election officials starting late this month. Should Trump be removed in January, it would be too late to remove his name from any of them, and the Republican campaign would be thrown into a state of chaos unlike that in living memory. That IS WP:Crystal, but it's something that needs to be taken into consideration. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Should Trump be removed in January" What could also happen is that the GOP-controlled Senate may drag out a trial for several weeks or months. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the timeline would be roughly the same as the Impeachment of Bill Clinton: the House votes on impeachment in mid-December, and the Senate then votes on the verdict in February. A trial would still force those Senators running for the Democratic nomination (Bennet, Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren) off the campaign trail, because they would be called to attend. The Iowa caucuses would be coming up soon on February 3. For those weeks before those caucuses, those six senators would have to literally campaign from the televised senate trial instead of personally stumping door-to-door in Iowa. And who knows how it would affect the logistics of the planned January Democratic debate.[1][2][3] Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section be updated by now??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.42.223 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Filing deadline

As far as I've been able to determine, there's no filing deadline set by the Federal Election Commission or law for the presidential election per se, only deadlines for individual states' primaries. Is that correct? Asav | Talk 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, correct. See the Elections in the United States article. While the United States Constitution, and some federal government laws and agencies set some limits, most election laws—including the presidential election—are administered and run by the individual states. The Federal Election Commission can enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act, and require presidential candidates to report their intentions to raise and spend the necessary money to run a nationwide campaign. But then if a candidate wants to appear on the ballot in each of the 50 U.S. states, they must make 50 separate filings in each of those states. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Spike Cohen (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Covid question

A bunch of people have tested positive since the president did. Should we mention them? How about those testing negative?Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a case-by-case basis. Some who test positive and some who test negative will affect other events. The situation is fluid (as in the recent creation of a White House outbreak of COVID-19 article). What was known at 10 a.m. Eastern Time does not reflect what is now known after 2:30 a.m. ET. If I had given you a specific list of names back then, it would have been a lot shorter than what is now known. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Manditory revert statement (ug!)

Please stop removing my stuff without explanation. Why they are doing this is mean, especially if I'm in the middle of something. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It was not removed without explanation. My edit summary said, "incomplete placeholders are not necessary and look bad." Also, I had no way of knowing you were in the middle of something. You have left incomplete placeholders before, here, which were removed by another editor here. I see you have now filled in the entries with content. Thank you. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump Iowa Event a few days ago

can someone add it? I don't see it on this page? `Idan (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

On the November 2020 dates, the articles states that North Carolina's last date for mail-in ballots to be received is November 6th. The correct date is November 12th.

https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-mail/faqs-voting-mail-north-carolina-2020#when-is-the-ballot-return-deadline-for-the-november-3-2020-election

If you scroll down to the Returning Your Ballot section and then open the second question, When is the ballot return deadline, it explicitly states November 12th.

Below is what the edits should look like.

November 6: Deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by election officials in Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

November 12: Deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by election officials in North Carolina.

Jmislansky (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 DoneGambling8nt (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

November 21 grammar mistake

There's a grammatical mistake in Nov 21's "Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and Speaker of the House Lee Chatfield meet with President Trump in a move to pressure them into ignoring the election and select Trump electors." It should read "selecting Trump electors" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsonblaha (talk • contribs) 04:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

November 20: Georgia certifies their election results, declaring President-elect Joe Biden the winner of the state. Governor Brian Kemp also announced that the 16 electors will be awarded to Biden. 2603:6010:D400:1C41:6F:235E:209B:1452 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: specify what has to be done. -ink&fables «talk» 10:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden notifying him of her decision to "ascertain" U.S. federal resources for transition of Presidency of Donald Trump to Presidency of Joe Biden.

Added image of GSA letter to the page, feel free to move it to a different location, remove it, and/or discuss. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been preferring to refrain from posting here any PDFs of the potentially numerous number of related official documents, which could range from anything from the Articles of Trump's impeachment, to Trump's legal filings and challenges, to any of the Trump administration's documents such as that one. Better to create a gallery page on Commons and link it from here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

Pennsylvania (and Nevada) just certified their election results. I think this information should be added in the timeline. [4] 2603:6010:D400:1C41:A934:D890:6C1C:8733 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump suggests he green-lighted the Biden transition. GSA head Emily Murphy, other allies disagree

Trump tweets "recommending" Emily W. Murphy start the presidential transition process to Joe Biden

• Weber, Peter (24 November 2020), "Trump suggests he green-lighted the Biden transition. GSA head Emily Murphy, other allies disagree", The Week, retrieved 24 November 2020
• Kalmbacher, Colin (23 November 2020), "Trump and Emily Murphy Offer Dueling Reasons for GSA's Plan to Move Forward with Biden Transition", Law & Crime, Dan Abrams, retrieved 24 November 2020
• Chalfant, Morgan (23 November 2020), "Trump tells GSA that Biden transition can begin", The Hill, retrieved 24 November 2020
• Choi, Matthew (24 November 2020), "Trump relents as administration begins Biden transition - But the president, in announcing the move by the GSA, said he was still not conceding.", Politico, retrieved 24 November 2020

Suggested potential sources (and image) to update on the discrepancies between the US President "recommending" the GSA start the transition to the Biden Administration — vs. the GSA Administrator stating they did this without White House influence.

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have incorporated that to a new entry dated "November 23–24" along with the suggestion of #Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020 (2) below. But no, I still disagree on posting the PDF documents. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020 (2)

The White House approved intelligence for Joe Biden to receive the President's Daily Brief ([5], [6]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:A934:D890:6C1C:8733 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Done, and merged to a new entry dated "November 23–24" because it relates to the GSA giving Biden access. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020 (2)

Dane County finished their partial recount, reconfirming that Biden won Wisconsin ([7]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:610E:F5A2:5A28:269B (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done by another editor at some point.
SSSB (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit from the Trump campaign ([8]) 2603:6010:D400:1C41:5488:6D6B:3F6:5D2B (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Already mentioned in article.
SSSB (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses a lawsuit filed by Republicans and Mike Kelly with prejudice ([9] [10]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:610E:F5A2:5A28:269B (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Already mentioned (article uses different wording).
SSSB (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

SCOTUS rejected the lawsuit filed by Republicans to block Biden's win ([11]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:4006:D852:3E2D:77E7 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 15:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Split this in three?

At the top of this page is a suggestion from nearly a year ago aking to divide the article in two. I think that this is too long now and we should split it in three: 2017-19, January-November 7,2020 and November 8 2020-January 20, 2021. Trump's legal clown show is important and the article is too long as it is. I know that the third section will be shorter than the others, but it makes sense, unless Trump concedes by thanksgiving. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I prefer sometime around November 4 as the demarcation, specifically in the afternoon, rather than the 8th. That is when the "red mirage" in the vote counts disappeared as soon as the absentee/mail-in ballots started to come in, and Trump (as if he sensed the results were actually going to go in favor of Biden) began stating his intentions of issuing specific legal challenges and calls for recounts. At least it marks a specific turning point or reaction by one of the candidates. November 8 is largely the result of the corporate media with their "decision desks", who somehow magically at some point "call" the races. That seems anti-climatic in the long run because by that time it was just a question of when Biden was going to be declared the presidential winner. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Decision desks are extremely conservative, especially since 2000. When the media called it for Biden, the populous went nuts, dancing in the streets. I was there. It's a good place to split.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Splitting on Nov 4 keeps all of Trump's legal actions and lawsuits, all his "fraud" allegations and conspiracy theories on Biden's win, all his calls for recounts, all his threats about going to the Supreme Court to contest Biden's vote margins, all of that stuff conveniently on the same page. He started making them as soon as his "we want all voting to stop" speech at 2:30am EST on Nov 4. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine. November 4 it is. Any further objections before I make the split this afternoon at about 4 EST? That's MY safe harbor...Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You should have given the courtesy of waiting 24 hours when I am available to respond, especially when you unilaterally made the first split between December 10 and 11, 2019, NOT the "2017-19, January" that your first proposed. The average readers would normally regard the "election year", as posted in the sidebar,[12] from January 1 to election day. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Split in three!!!!

As per consensus, I split it in three. The litigation stuff is on another page.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" when it is just you and me. And especially when you unilaterally made the first split between December 10 and 11, 2019, NOT the "2017-19, January" that your first proposed.[13] Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

All 50 states certifies their election results after West Virginia became the final state to do so ([14], [15]). This can be added to the timeline. 2603:6010:D400:1C41:A931:B774:A9BB:C246 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed to be the 2017-2019 page?

@Starzoner and Arglebargle79: I thought the goal of the article split was to make each part shorter. Shouldn't this article (Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election) be a disambiguation page, and shouldn't Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election (2017-2019) stop after November 2019? Now you've made the 2017-2019 page a redirect to here, without taking off the second and third parts of the timeline. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I an concerned, there was no actual consensus for a split yet. Just a conversation just between me and Arglebargle79 here without any other editors above -- before he unilaterally says "Any further objections before I make the split this afternoon at about 4 EST?"[16] without giving a courtesy 24 hour notice for me to respond when I am avaliable. And because this editor does not know how to split properly without waiting for me to help, he makes a mess of things, forcing Starzoner to partially revert. Another part of a pattern of a lack of competence with this editor along with the August arbitration enforcement sanction. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

And Arglebargle79 unilaterally made the first split between December 10 and 11, 2019, NOT the "2017-19, January" that was first proposed.[17] Arglebargle79 never discussed this. The average readers would normally regard the "election year", as posted in the sidebar,[18] from January 1 to election day. Again, with all the other complaints about this editor, including the numerous ones on the user talk page, competence is required when editing Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting was necessary. The thing is far too long and was such a year ago. The places to split between the first two articles was the logical place to do it (the date when the first delegates were chosen), and the split between the second and third was your idea, not mine. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agreed to the split second and third, but not the first and second. Several states canceled their GOP primaries before Hawaii. Only Hawaii decided to formally award their pledged delegates immediately, but in the readers' minds that is largely a formality as there was no doubt that all those other canceled states would eventually assign their pledged delegates to Trump. My first choice would make the split on September 7 when Kansas, Nevada, and South Carolina were the first ones to cancel, but that would make the middle page longer than it should be. Therefore, either your original proposal of January 1, or when the voting actually started with the Iowa caucuses on February 3. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11: If this is to be split in two, it would make much more sense to split right after the Republican convention at August 27-28. That way the two parts would be approximately equal. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Please correct two minor issues with the plot in the Candidate participation timeline plot. The first issue is that the bold vertical lines representing key events have a plotting artifact where another, spurious, line segment shows up cutting diagonally through the rest of the plot. This is distracting and should be removed. The second issue is that the solid black vertical line is unlabeled in the event legend to the right of the plot (whereas the Iowa caucuses, etc. are labeled). Presumably this black line refers to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections because it occurs in November of 2018; please add this label to the legend.

2600:1700:68D0:6F10:2033:AD2F:3E33:D2DD (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added the label for the midterm elections. However, the plotting artifacts are not showing on my browser, so maybe someone else can find out what it is. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see the plotting artifact on my browsers any more either, so maybe someone else resolved it. Not sure. In any event, I'll close the edit request for now and if someone else observes the plotting fact again they can address it as it arises.

2600:1700:68D0:6F10:E1ED:D609:4D65:B77D (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020 (2)

Trump also acknowledged that there would be a Biden administration while also continuing to call for the election to be overturned ([19]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:5949:6685:3C89:9A4E (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done. The full context of that tweet by Trump was in regard to the Texas v. Pennsylvania U.S. Supreme Court case that he was expecting that they would hear. Now that they rejected hearing it hours after he made that tweet, it is now out of context. That is my opinion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

A Wisconsin Circuit Judge (named Stephen Simanek) has rejected a lawsuit by Trump seeking to throw out 221,000 votes in the state ([20]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:5949:6685:3C89:9A4E (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Partially Done, in the context that the WI Supreme Court has now agreed to hear it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

ending the thing

I put an explanation as a coda. the litigation could go on forever. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the speculation.

February and afterward

removed section

The detritus from presidential campaigns generally go on for years as paperwork is filed and debts are settled. In this case, litigation may continue well into the year and possibly afterward. The Watergate and Russia investigations, for example, took years to complete, and resentments, such as those emanating from the 1968 and 2000 elections, even longer. Reverberations from the election of 1860 have gone on for over a century and a half. None can say when the election of 2020 will fade into memory.

—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Should the page be split?

Do others believe this page should be split? Here are some options.

• Status quo
• Split in two: Specifically after the Republican convention (August 27/28, 2020), as this is approximately halfway in the middle and splits the timeline into primaries and general election.
• Split in three: The second split will be on November 4, which will allow Trump's legal challenges to make up a separate timeline. The first split can be one of the following options.
  • September 6/7, 2019: This was when the first primaries were cancelled (by the Republicans).
  • December 10/11, 2019: This was when the first delegates were officially awarded (by the Republicans).
  • End of year 2019: This is a reasonable boundary, and would include all primary early voting in the second article.
  • February 2/3, 2020: This was when the Iowa caucuses were held.

• I think it should be split into two because it is currently very long and slow to load, and primary/general makes for a good division, but I think three articles are too many.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Status quo: Either no split, or a split by calendar year. riffic (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• if it is to split, I suggest making this page a list page instead of moving it to a different page, taking the history.Starzoner (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Split in three.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Any split will do. Status quo is untenable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Riffic, Starzoner, Arglebargle79, and Onetwothreeip: I split the article in two according to my idea. There were two major reasons for this. One: the article took too long to load. Two: On the mobile browser the article is generally split by level one heading. It's a pain to have to click "2020" and then scroll all the way down to get to December. Now each month in the second article is a level one heading.

• Note: you may want to add these articles to your watchlists: Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election (primaries) and Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election (general).—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This is good. Further splits can be made as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Why did you revert me? I thought you wanted the page to be split?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Naddruf: I did, but not those places. Also, I did a similar thing and they did it to me. We should have consensus Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Alright. I'm okay with splitting it in three instead. How about one split at the end of 2019, and one on November 4, 2020? Regarding consensus, I don't think everyone will ever agree, but it seems like it has now been discussed a bit more than when you did it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A third article is good too. We can simply take them from the two articles we have now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

good. Arglebargle79 (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Now split in three

@Riffic, Starzoner, Arglebargle79, Onetwothreeip, and Zzyzx11: The article is now split in three. My issue with this is the article sizes:

1. Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election (2017-2019): 108,000 bytes
2. Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election (January 1–November 4, 2020): 277,000 bytes
3. Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election (November 4, 2020 – 2021): 144,000 bytes

So the second article is longer than the other two combined. This is why I wanted to split it differently. I guess early 2020 should probably be moved into the second article. Does anybody have a good cutoff date? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think January 2020 is a good date to split. I would also move all of November 2020 to the third article. We can then have the articles titled (2017–2019), (January–October 2020) and (December 2020–January 2021), and the second article would be slightly smaller. One article being larger than the other two combined is not a serious issue as the other articles are still quite large. The easiest way to address that would be to split the second article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Four articles? Sounds like a bit too much. Anyway, if you want to move content or retitle the articles, go ahead. Just make sure to check all the links, including the template {{2020 United States presidential election}}. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The second article is now 251kB and the third article is now 171kB. These articles should still be reduced further, particularly by removing unnecessary references or irrelevant timeline entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point. In fact I would not be surprised that in the future someone would eventually apply the ten-year test, remove entries that would later be irrelevant, and then maybe attempt to merge everything back into one page like the previous 2016 page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

not perfect, but I can live with itArglebargle79 (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems ok. I can agree to this. Starzoner (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)