Talk:Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014

Article Name

Hi! I reverted the name of this article to include the bill number. This is a necessary disambiguation. There is already another bill - "H.J.Res 65 The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014" - that shares the same name. Congress should be more creative, clearly.  :) If anyone has any questions about this, feel free to ask them here. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Support: Before the current stalemate in Congress concludes, there may be several continuing resolutions introduced and passed. Within Congresses and over time, there are often many bills, including continuing resolutions, with the same name. They must be distinguished by their identifying numbers and the number of the Congress in which they were introduced. If you disagree, please join in discussion here, of course. Thanks! JimHarperDC (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Do you feel that the number of the Congress is necessary, as there are unlikely to be any bills regarding the FY2014 budget passed by any other Congress? (Just trying to make the title as concise as possible.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy in talking before editing. Too rare! ;-) My thinking is that the Congress number is a good to include because it distinguishes the bill from others in different Congresses with the same number (the way the bill number distinguishes among bills with the same name in the same Congress). If people are searching for H.R. 1234 in the current Congress, for example, they can tell from the title that it's the one they're looking for, and if it has a different Congress number they can know it's not the one they're looking for. The thinking here is forward-looking. We're trying to increase the number of bills that have articles (notable bills, of course) and want to avoid "collisions" in the future, where bills with the same popular names and the bills with the same numbers are hard to distinguish. I agree that it's not an attractive look for an article title, and I know what you mean about being concise. The challenge is striking a balance between concise and distinct, and this convention leans toward distinct, but I think it will prove best over time. Thanks for asking! Happy to hear your further thoughts. JimHarperDC (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'm a big fan of WP:BRD and I wasn't aware of the alternate bill when I moved it the first time. The relevant policy is WP:PRECISE, which says that article titles should be disambiguated only to the extent needed to distinguish it from other potential articles. The example given in the policy is that "Queen (rock band)" is inappropriate becuase "Queen (band)" is shorter and there is no need to distinguish between bands called Queen of different genres. I think this falls under the same category: we're never going to need an article "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res 59; 120th Congress)", for example, so the appropriate place for the Congress number is in the lead paragraph rather than the title.

That being said, we won't know for a while how many bills there will be called "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014" and which ones are notable. After the government shutdown is resolved, we will likely need to revisit this and decide which such bills are notable and whether they should have separate articles or be covered in a single article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is picky, but should there be a period after the "Res"? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Continuing Appropriations **Act**, 2014

The Senate just passed the "Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014" (note "Act" rather than "Resolution"), which is an amended version of H.R. 2775, formerly the No Subsidies Without Verification Act. It essentially includes the No Subsidies Without Verification Act language as well as the debt cieling suspension. The text is here: [1]. I suppose the other article should be updated to reflect this, but I wanted to make a note of it here as well. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Article name should be "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013"

At this point, I think the article should be renamed to "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013" directly, rather than that being a redirect to "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res 59)". It's the new law coming out of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that will matter, not the procedural history of what vehicle that law got offered as a complete amendment to. There's nothing wrong with including that history, but it shouldn't dominate the framing of the article or its title. Media usage isn't the only determining factor here, but it is pretty one-sided: A Google News search shows 1,370 hits for "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013". By comparison, "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014" gets only 1 hit and "H.J.Res 59" gets only 48 hits. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that there should be separate articles for the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. The latter was made by striking and replacing the entire text of the former, so although they have a shared procedural history, the language and intent of the bills have nothing to do with each other, and it is confusing to readers for both to be in the same article.

Usually when Congress does this, the stricken language is non-notable, but in this case the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 is notable as the bill whose failure essentially caused the government shutdown earlier this year, and it was discussed in the media quite a lot, although usually not by using the formal name. So my proposal is to split Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 into a separate article, with both articles mentioning the shared procedural history. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, to avoid confusion, I do think the article should be split and renamed. However, we should still make a reference to this page because this Bipartisan Budget Act just replaces the text of this CR. Nrb1997 (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the matter. If you check the page history, you'll note I rearranged the sections a few times before settling on this one - it's hard to know what to do since they are the same bill, but with wildly different text. All official sources related to H.J.Res. 59 will be the same for both versions. Official sources will treat it as the same item. I considered doing separate articles, but other editors keep merging things I do, so I figured one article was better. Haha. If they are separated, we'll need to be really clear on their relationship in both articles. I'd be interesting if someone could find a source indicating why they replaced the text instead of writing a new H.J.Res. 59, but I haven't found anything about that myself. I assume it was a tactic that let them skip some steps and speed up the process of passage, but I don't have any sources saying so. I do agree that both sets of text are notable. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's that Wikipedia likes to have articles delineated by topic rather that what bill it is procedurally. A lot of time this means discussing bills with similar topics within the same article, but in this case we have two dissimilar bills that share a procedural history.

It's fairly common for Congress to axe the text of a bill that has effectively died and replace it when they're in a hurry—I think they call it an amendment in the nature of a substitute—for example the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 were passed in the same way. I'm not sure if there's any precedent for the old text being notable enough to have its own article, perhaps this is the first such case on Wikipedia. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fair. I updated the infobox on that page to reflect the major votes on the bill and blank some of the fields that were incorrect about that version of the text. Some of the fields are a compromise of details about the original bill and ones about the new amendment. This situation is rare enough there really isn't a proper infobox format for it. See if you think it conveys the correct info accurately - I'm okay with changing it if not. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever's good with you is good with me. I also nominated the new article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res 59). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219013825/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-hj59/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-hj59/show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)