Talk:H.R. 2449 (113th Congress)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 22 December 2014[edit]

The consensus is that the long names should not be used as the titles of these articles. One editor did !vote "Oppose," but in any case it seems they don't completely reject the proposed format "H.R. xxxx (xxxth Congress)" (which this article has already been moved to), so I suggest that is probably the best option at this point. Of course, further discussion on the best title might still be necessary, e.g. whether the short title might be a better option in cases where one exists. It was suggested that some of these bills may not actually deserve articles, but that would need to be addressed in a different place than RM. In either case, this discussion seems useful for establishing precedent (at least, precedent pending a more centralized discussion if anybody wants to start one), as requested by the proposer. Sunrise (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

– These are absurdly long titles that no one is ever going to type in doing a search for the relevant resolutions. We should steer away from the kind of super-long titles that Congress uses. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) bd2412 T 19:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in spirit, but oppose doing this via RM. Nom should be bold, per WP:BRD; get it done and save us all a lot of time. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer to establish the precedent by discussion. bd2412 T 20:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. But doesn't that border on WP:POINTy? Dicklyon (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find this WP:NOTPOINTy. (Proposing to move the articles to bad titles in order to garner opposition would be POINTy.) The objective of all RMs is to establish consensus. If someone presents a good, systematic way to name the articles over the course of the discussion, all the better. Dekimasuよ! 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be fair, I am absolutely certain that these pages must be moved, but not at all certain what would be the best title scheme to use for determining target titles. I think I have made a logical proposal for the first one, but perhaps someone else will come up with something better. bd2412 T 21:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To authorize the closer of this move request to amend the titles in question for the benefit of Wikipedia, aye. Dekimasuよ! 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Dicklyon Red Slash 22:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how about we call them House Resolution xyz ? (for a shorter name, and in lieu of anything better for the ones without other choices) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely Oppose bare use of "House Bill" or "House Resolution" number with no disambiguator: A reference to legislative resolutions, without specifying the legislature and legislative term, is always inappropriate and misleading. Even government agencies get this wrong: You'll see some reference like "to comply with H.B. 1234" and it turns out they mean H.B. 1234 from some Congress 30 years ago, and you can't figure out which one, because there have been 80 different Congresses that numbered up that far. Also, remember that there are many, many state legislatures that use the same category and numbering style. (Any articles with ambiguous titles like that should be renamed; they're likely to be confused with other things that are probably as notable than the article.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed names: The current names aren't pretty, but since they're the closest things to most commonly used name we have, assuming that none of them have short titles in them. Renaming should only happen if there is another common name, not just a shorter description we made up, particularly since there may be multiple bills on the same general subject. Are these bills even notable? I'm not sure what the search engine reason would have to do with this: If someone is looking for that specific bill, they're either going to cut-and-paste or type part of the name they already know. It has to be in either the title or the article text, so that it does show up when people do try to match it. Changing the title just moves the match from the title to the article text. --Closeapple (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Closeapple (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that an appropriate option might even be to lengthen the titles as follows:
United States proposed legislation: To authorize the President to extend the term of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy
United States proposed legislation: To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault
United States proposed legislation: To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to maintain or replace certain facilities and structures for commercial recreation services at Smith Gulch in Idaho
United States proposed legislation: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to extend through 2018 the authority of the Federal Election Commission to impose civil money penalties on the basis of a schedule of penalties
United States proposed legislation: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to take certain Federal lands located in El Dorado County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
An alternate beginning might be "United States proposed federal legislation:..." To an extent I also think that long titles may pictographically represent a topic of a legal document.
GregKaye ✍♪ 10:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a hard limit to the length of article titles. I don't know what it is offhand, but I think that we are already approaching it. bd2412 T 17:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
bd2412, Is that a technical hard limit or based on any Wikipedia policy? I don't think that the application of WP:CONCISE applies to an addition of a category type prefix. GregKaye 10:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hard limit to which I referred is a technical hard limit. For example, Wikipedia can not support the full Fiona Apple title: "[[When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might so When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right]]". The most that it will link from that title is "When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might so When You Go Solo, You Hold". Of course, there are more things to consider than just hard limits. If you go to the article, To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to maintain or replace certain facilities and structures for commercial recreation services at Smith Gulch in Idaho and look at the title at the top of the page, it doesn't exactly lend itself to readability. Long titles like these in our default fonts (which cater well to our more characteristic titles) are likely to give our readers eyestrain and headaches. bd2412 T 16:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yeah, this could have been done boldly, but nothing wrong with going through the "formal" process. --IJBall (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposed and for that are question marked House Resolution xxx (xxxth United States Congress) seems appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support shortening and reasonable attempts at consistency. This reminds me very much of Talk:United States House resolution on persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma, where I think we can through a useful discussion to a good result (notability questions aside). It would be nice to be consistent with that decision. I haven't immediately read this carefully enough to see it there is a useful precedent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on H.R. 2449 (113th Congress). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H.R._2449_(113th_Congress)&oldid=1207369463"