Talk:List of acts of the 117th United States Congress

Wikisource

@Greshthegreat: Why did you revert my edit, and using no edit summary? As I said yesterday, "Drop wikisource absent any indication that's useful." The links generally don't work; no one is maintaining them. They don't show up as red because they are interwiki links, but they might as well be. It doesn't seem like Wikisource is a reliable location for public law text, especially when we have actual links in the far right column to the authoritative source. At a minimum we shouldn't link to Wikisource in the 117th Congress when there are no such laws in Wikisource. It should take at least one (but I think, probably a lot more than just one). Please explain your edit, thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about that. I missed your note in your edit summary. I did not intend to revert your edit. I just saw what looked like an incomplete wikitext link for a listed bill but didn't realize we were using a different link type. My mistake. Sorry about that! Greshthegreat (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Numberguy6: Here we go again, I guess. "WS page has been created". Why? What's the point? What is the value-add for Wikisource here over the relatively reliable congress.gov? And more importantly, are you going to do it for every law? Only a very small handful of the 116th Congress has wikisource pages. I don't think there is any point in having those links and because they don't show up as readred, they generate massive confusion that's out of scale with their small benefit. Can you tell me the argument in favor? jhawkinson (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just being consistent with List of acts of the 116th United States Congress, etc. If you want to remove the link, then we should remove it for every "List of acts..." page. --Numberguy6 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an unreasonably high burden, to make changes to every single one of these similar pages; they are products of their times and somewhat set in them. It's much easier to do that at transitions. I wish you had…looked at the history of this page before just going and adding it. I don't think it makes sense to remove the page from Wikisource now, but I think it sets a problematic expectation. Looking at the 116th page, I'm not sure what to do about it. Most of those links are bad and don't work, and of course the laws are old enough that it's not a problem of "someone hasn't done it yet" because of recency. I will, again, remove the Wikisource link from this page, even though it is not now a redlink. But this just now all got…harder. jhawkinson (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, when I reverted you, I said in the es, "…Discuss on talk if you want to bring them back." Why didn't you honor that request? jhawkinson (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the Wikisource links should generally be removed. That's a separate project and we should not be expecting editors there to put the laws in there, especially since the GPO/Congress links are quite reliable and wikisource doesn't add anything besides, as jhawkinson said, confusion because they are disguised redlinks. I had removed them myself from I think the 116th article once and was reverted, with no benefit to the reader. Reywas92^Talk 07:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

117-4 does not yet exist

@Numberguy6: What's your source for Public Law 117-4? It does not appear to have been assigned a number according to Congress, NARA, GPO, OFR PENS, etc. We should not be adding numbers until they are officially assigned. It's my intent to revert your addition shortly. jhawkinson (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Standards for appearance?

So, Numberguy6, what is the standard for a row appearing in this table? My historical belief has been we should not list them until they are defined as Public Laws. But lately you have been adding them based on something else, maybe press reports of bill signings, or maybe congress.gov's reporting of that? This seems to generate more churn in the article, and I'm not sure it's a good idea. On the other hand, part of my reluctance stems from a desire to get generation of these pages automated via Wikidata, see Talk:List_of_acts_of_the_116th_United_States_Congress#How_can_we_use/levarage_wikidata?, but I haven't had time to work much on that lately. What do you think the standard should be? jhawkinson (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Numberguy6, I ask again. When do you think it's OK to add laws to this list? And what is your source as to 117-58 as the numbering, other than just guessing? I do not think guessing is ok. So I have removed 117-58's numbering (but left the text).

Also, Please use an edit summary! For the amount of editing you do of prominent articles and the desire for others to review it quickly and efficiently, I do not think it is acceptable for you to omit edit summaries. I apologize for not raising this as an issue previously, I didn't want to rant about it, but I think it's a big deal. Thank you. jhawkinson (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Need for Statue link?

Hi all, quick question, what is the need for the statue link in the last column? Currently if it is used the website it goes to doesn't provide any more additional information then what the GPO provides, even less to be frank. Plus it just adds additional clutter to the page. DanielgClifft (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act

I'm not sure exactly when "enacted" takes effect but I have created a new article for Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act which has passed both chambers and is pending the President's signature. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Redlinks for certain subjects of private laws

I have removed redlinks for the persons who benefited from three of the private laws enacted by the 117th Congress. These individuals are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia articles; there is no significant in-depth coverage about these people, only some routine coverage. Private laws are relatively unusual, but also fairly obscure, and there is nothing encyclopedically noteworthy about these individuals and families. Neutrality^talk 19:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)