Talk:Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act

Naming of the series of articles on the Glass-Steagall legislation

Dovid (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC) This section is transcluded from Talk:Glass–Steagall_Legislation/Series_name. If you wish to comment on this section, please do your edits there.

Transcluded discussion

This article is part of a series on the Glass-Steagall Legislation. The context of the series of articles is not the Glass-Steagall Act (i.e., the full Banking Act of 1933). Instead, it focuses on the most well-known portions of the Act, which served to split the financial industry into two worlds, deposits ("banks") and investment.

The series includes:

• Glass-Steagall Legislation (the main article)
• Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes on the ways financial firms and regulators bypassed the intent of the law
• Glass–Steagall: decline on the attempts to water down and repeal the law
• Glass–Steagall: Aftermath of repeal
• Glass-Steagall: worldwide response -- an article, not yet written, about attempts to copy the intent of the act in other countries. It follows the path of the others (see below).

Originally, these appeared in a single article. The article was very long -- I think it printed at about 70 pages -- and I split it up. To help make the articles easy to find and stylistically hang together, I chose a naming scheme that puts Glass-Steagall at the beginning, followed by a colon and the more specific scope of the individual article. This allowed the main article to become much shorter, when specific areas of it were broken out into separate articles, and only a summary left in the main article.

At the same time, thee naming makes the group of articles easy to spot together in the search box, and easy to differentiate there and in the body of text of the main article, since they are short (after the colon) and the reader's eye easily skips over the common prefix. The shortness also meets WP:CRITERIA's conciseness rule. The consistency in naming also matches WP:CRITERIA's consistency rule.

(The last article in the series is intended to pull several more sections out of the main article. They are the ones that focus outside the US. The original author of the material has agreed to try to help out here, since it is complex and beyond my subject knowledge.)

However, some editors, I'm sure with the best intentions, saw the article names and thought they needed changing, perhaps to be more prose-like. We thus got:

• Legislation, limits and loopholes related to the Glass–Steagall Act
• The decline of the Glass–Steagall Act
• Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act
• The decline of the Glass–Steagall Act
• The aftermath of the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act

There are several problems with this approach.

1. The titles of the new names all incorrectly refer to the articles as Glass-Steagall Act. In fact, none of them has to do with the act as a whole, they are al about the four famous sections and activity following their passage or repeal. The rest of the Act is unrelated!
2. It makes the individual articles difficult to find (a search will probably land on the main article, but the coverage there of the subarticles is somewhat buried in the still very long article)
3. The names are inconsistent with each other
4. Some of the names are very long, which is not in keeping with article naming guidance
5. It is inconsistent with the main article usage

I have therefore reverted two of the articles to their earlier, established names. I could not revert one of the others, due to multiple previous moves, and will be asking for administrator assistance in this.

I ask that no further name changes (moves) be made without prior discussion. Dovid (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is "Legislation" capitalised? It is not part of the name or a proper noun, right?–Totie (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. See WP:NDESC for a good explanation of phrase titles like this being okay on Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act → Glass–Steagall: decline – Violates WP:THE, as well as a host of reasons described above (length of name, consistency with other articles, likely title search term, established name ... all of which jive with article naming standards). Dovid (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:THE really doesn't apply here. Just look at the whole title of the page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). It's not about proscribing "the" from titles altogether. And the proposed title is a much less likely search term than the current form. All of these colon titles should be moved. They're complete anomalies from our titling guidelines. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the colon-delimited titles seem a bit like WP:SUBPAGES, which are discouraged. But I'm not completely sure of that, so I'm not going to render a boldfaced action recommendation at the moment. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'm not just being pedantic. In this case, "the" doesn't fit any of the allowed criteria, check it yourself. Colons are not an issue, there are some cases where they are restricted, but none apply here. Less likely search term? In the full search feature true, any of the titles in use will work equally well, but in the quick search box, not at all. Glass-Steagall should start it, to make any of them easy to find, especially for someone viewing these articles multiple time. This is a breakout of Glass-Steagall information, and that's what people will start typing. As to subpages, those are not possible in article space anyway. The entire goal is to break the previous 70+ page article into usable chunks that are somewhat self-contained, all for practical reasons of approachability (navigability and comprehension). If not for that, they really would have been fine as a single article, as they used to be. How do you break up an article for usability, but keep some semblance of cohesiveness to the group? My solution is the article naming convention, with the main subject as common prefix. If anyone has a better solution, well, that's what we're here to talk about. Dovid (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Dovid, but you're essentially asking for a radical change in policy. See WP:TITLEFORMAT, specifically under "Do not create subsidiary articles" (that section heading is slightly misleading on its own, but the text underneath is clear). --BDD (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah hah! Now we're getting somewhere. You and I have been reading different policies guidelines. WP:TITLEFORMAT is out of sync with WP:Summary style#Naming conventions for subarticles, which says: Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable. I'd say we need to get that conflict resolved, but that shouldn't hold us back from then deciding what would be right here, because of WP:IGNORE. Dovid (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, but that's about exceptions to COMMONNAME, not to article title policy altogether. I'm trying to think of how that section could be applied, but I'm coming up with a blank. Incidentally, I do agree with you in the above section that these spinoff pages shouldn't use "Glass–Steagall Act" when the main page is "Glass–Steagall Legislation." Either the parent or children should change. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Though it uses the term "common-name," it links the exception to the TITLEFORMAT (#Do not create subsidiary articles). Sounds like the author was using "common-name" to refer to naming a group of articles similarly, and was not specifically referring to WP:COMMONNAME. Dovid (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – The proposed title doesn't fit in any article title guidelines. The other sub-articles should be renamed to fit title conventions. --Article editor (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? It isn't recognizable for the subject, natural to search for, precise about the subject, concise, or consistent? I'll admit, it isn't a natural fit for a link target, but nothing proposed by anyoe meets that (nor is likely to). What other conventions? Lowercase, singular form, ambiguity, The/a/an, noun-orientation, quotes? All met. Subsidiary articles? See discussion above. I just covered pretty much all of WP:TITLE. Well, except for the part of when-in-doubt, default to the title selected by the first major contributor. So, other than a small part of the "natural" criteria, and settling debate over two conflicting guidelines, the proposed move meets all conventions of a good title. Dovid (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The format of the proposed title is quite unusual for a Wiki article, and for no good reason I can see. RevoltingHomoBoy (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title is unencyclopedic and read more like an essay title. Then again, the current title also seems a little like an essay title, too. (How does a law "decline"?) —  AjaxSmack  01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Decline" refers to the various ways the law and its intended use became ineffective over time. Another way to put it would be "Circumvention and repeal." But then it sounds like two different articles, when there only needs to be one. So, no essay here, nor essay-like naming, in any version of the titles for this article. Dovid (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Move to close this discussion as not moved. -- Trevj (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A different idea

I can see that almost nobody likes the proposal. However, this discussion has clarified something to me: The group of articles are all about Glass-Steagall, but are differentiated form each other by a specific focus. "Differentiated" in article titles brings to mind disambiguation. So perhaps, they should be named:

• Glass-Steagall (decline)
• Glass-Steagall (aftermath of repeal)
• Glass-Steagall (limits and loopholes)
• Glass-Steagall (worldwide response)

What do you think? Dovid (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds more plausible. I suggest a multi-move, including articles such as Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes. -- Trevj (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really needed, as none of the targets exist, so it can be done by any editor, if we get consensus on it. Dovid (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the hyphenation needs correcting:

• Glass–Steagall (decline)
• Glass–Steagall (aftermath of repeal)
• Glass–Steagall (limits and loopholes)
• Glass–Steagall (worldwide response)

-- Trevj (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also oppose moves such as these, and I suspect several of the above editors would as well. The first title, for example, implies there's something called Glass-Steagall which is a decline. I'm still having trouble seeing Dovid's objection to these descriptive titles. Compare to Eurozone crisis and some of its spinoff articles: Causes of the Eurozone crisis, Policy reactions to the Eurozone crisis, Economic reforms and recovery proposals regarding the Eurozone crisis, Proposed long-term solutions for the European sovereign-debt crisis, and Controversies surrounding the Eurozone crisis. Sure, some of those are a bit wordy, but spinoffs like these really just exist because the parent articles have gotten too long. It's reasonable to expect most readers of the spinoffs will be directed there from the parent article. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Help with tying Glass-Steagall history into market-linked CDs?

I created a "history" section in the market-linked CDs page, which references the regulatory context that Glass-Steagall imposed on banks and their prohibition of offering investment products. I would be more than grateful if someone with more knowledge of banking regulations could review that section and improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugevas (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://c0403731.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/collection/papers/1990/1994_0624_Fulton3447.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213160318/http://www.securitization.net/knowledge/transactions/coll_loan_obl.asp to http://www.securitization.net/knowledge/transactions/coll_loan_obl.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/business-review/1996/july-august/Glass–Steagall.cfm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act. 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/20120218113200/http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/boardmembership.htm to http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/boardmembership.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)