Talk:Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974/Archives/2017

Name change
I moved the page to add "of 1974" because it is standard practice to cite the year of a statute. I hope there are no objections.  Wik idea  17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is objection. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the fact that a name is "official" carries little weight here on Wikipedia.  And those of us in the United States are well aware that, by far, the law is most commonly referred to by its acronym "ERISA".  I'm offering no opinion as to whether the title of this article should be "ERISA" -- I merely note that the original "without the year" title served as a reasonable compromise between the law's official name and its common one. As for it being standard practice to include the year, it certainly isn't standard practice here on Wikipedia.  You'll be just as likely to find article names that don't include the year as those that do include it.  And many of the latter are low-traffic articles for which it is plausible to think were written by editors unfamiliar with WP:COMMONNAME.  Whether or not this is the case, it still remains true that there is no overriding consensus on Wikipedia regarding this point. Wikidea, if you remain committed to using the official name, you might want to start an RfC on the question.  In the meantime, however, there is objection to your name change.  Would you please undo your changes pending further discussion?  Thank you.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless there was an Employee Retirement Income Security Act in another year, I think the year is unnecessary. See WP:PRECISION. On the other hand, maybe WP:NCGAL requires it. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Malik. Good to hear from you again.  Regarding WP:NCGAL, you'd think that guidance regarding legislation might have been framed more clearly.  But it wasn't.  Still, I read the second and third bullet points simply as special rules that apply when the article title happens to be the official title of the legislation.  I don't see any plausible reading that would cause them to override the first bullet point's admonition to "prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used".  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi NewYorkActuary. I agree with you that the year is unnecessary. I also wish the guidance in WP:NCGAL were clearer. At one time, Voting Rights Act had no year in the title because there's only one (in the U.S., at least), whereas the famous civil rights law is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the U.S. enacted many Civil Rights Acts, particularly during Reconstruction. But evidently the Voting Rights Act article was moved to Voting Rights Act of 1965 a few years ago. I don't watch enough articles about laws to know what the standards in this area are. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to legal materials, I have never really understood the logic of titling an encyclopedia article based on "how something is most commonly referred to". I also don't understand the logic of omitting part of the official name of a statute (namely the year) because the year is "unnecessary." So what it it's "unnecessary"? I guess my view is in the minority here in Wikipedia, though. Famspear (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)