Talk:DATA Act

Redirects
Hi! I just removed a speedy deletion request and changed the redirect and wanted to give a fuller answer of why. The speedy deletion request indicated that the editor wanted to move the article Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013 (H.R. 2061; 113th Congress) to this page.

First, I don't think that would have been appropriate. "Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013" is the correct and official short title of the bill, with "DATA Act" being offered as an alternate title or nickname. That's why there is a redirect here in the first place - people can search the nickname, but they should be directed to an encyclopedia article with the correct title. The disambiguating numbers are also an important part of the title. There is more than one "Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013" in the 113th Congress (thus requiring the bill number) and there has been a "Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013" in more than one Congress (thus requiring the Congress number for clarity). Furthermore, "DATA Act" is a lot vaguer than "Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013" so I don't see any reason to remove that content.

Second, even if I did think it would be appropriate to shorten the name so much, Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013 (H.R. 2061; 113th Congress) would be the incorrect bill to move here. In terms of a bill becoming law, it doesn't really matter whether it passes first in the House or in the Senate, so long as it is passed by both. So, there are often identical or nearly identical or broadly similar legislation will be introduced into both chambers under the same name. That happened this year. H.R. 2061 passed in the House and remains a valid bill that the Senate could do something with (use as a legislative vehicle, for instance) until the very last day of this Congress. However, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (S. 994; 113th Congress), aka very similar legislation with the same name and nickname, has passed in both the House and the Senate and was presented to the President. So, in the event that it becomes law, S. 994 is the best candidate for having this title, not H.R. 2061. Does that make sense?

Congress has complicated rules and traditions about naming bills and laws, with lots of redundancy, overlap, and confusion. Congressional naming conventions do not always mesh well with Wikipedia article naming guidelines. I hope I have effectively explained my reasoning behind the article names I have used. Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, whichever one passed should be moved. Regarding "Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014" versus "DATA Act", I think WP:COMMONNAME clearly prefers "DATA Act", which is shorter and easier to wikilink as well.


 * In addition, I noticed you (at least I think its you) keep adding superfluous bill information in the title. I think this is also superfluous; such information is not needed to disambiguate most acts of Congress or their corresponding bills, and it is not part of the title. Accordingly, such information should be removed from article titles. Don't you agree? Int21h (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I may not have been clear about it, but I think WP:COMMONNAME outweighs the need to disambiguate. Many, many acts of Congress had simultaneous bills in multiple Congresses, but there is no need to disambiguate them all preemptively (assuming there were articles for the ones that didn't pass but had the same proposed short title). For example, when someone refers to the PATRIOT Act, they most likely refer to the one that passed, not the ones that didn't, and there is no need to disambiguate the title to differentiate between the one that passed and the ones that didn't (assuming there were articles for the ones that didn't pass but had the same proposed short title). If I created articles for the proposed but un-passed bills for commonly cited acts of Congress, we would not rename all the acts to preemptively disambiguate. Because WP:COMMONNAME would outweigh such a move as unnecessary. Int21h (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And even if disambiguation is preferable, this is not the consensus method of disambiguation. Nor do I think it should be. Int21h (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)