Talk:Public Law 113-45

Article needs work

I've added update and notability tags. Is anything happening with the act? Are there secondary (such as newspaper articles) sources to prove notability?

In addition the title is too long, and it's nothing that anyone will ever search on. I think a shorter name should be devised, or perhaps the content should rather be added to some existing article on trucking in the USA. --Hordaland (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted? Or merged?

Obviously, no one feels any responsibility for this article. We do have a Portal:Trucks, but except for a bot in 2013, no one has edited it since October 2012, so there's not much help to be found there.

From this article, it appears that H.R. 3095; 113th Congress probably was considered in about September 2013.

(In the middle of the section Procedural history, H.R.1961 is mentioned. Probably a typo, as H.R.1961 has to do with something else entirely. According to Google: "H.R.1961 - To amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption from the fire-retardant materials construction requirement for vessels operating within ...")

H.R. 3095 is already listed in List of bills in the 113th United States Congress.

I see that the article Trucking industry in the United States has a section, Legislation, which mentions H.R. 3095. I intend to suggest merging this article into that section. --Hordaland (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You're right - the article definitely needs to be updated... so I did so. "H.R. 1961" was a typo and I fixed it. I oppose merging this article into the trucking section for a few reasons. First, as you'll see in the updates, this article isn't just about a bill now - it was signed into law a few months ago. Federal laws frequently affect millions of people (and this one does), so I think it is good for Wikipedia to have solid information on them. Shouldn't people be able to look up laws and read about them in something more understandable than legalese? Second, much of the information in this article isn't really relevant to the trucking industry article, but is relevant in a legislative perspective. The trucking industry article cares about the effects of the law, but not necessarily when it passed the House, what the CBO analysis was, or which associations supported it. There's a different in focus/emphasis between the two articles. Trying to merge this article into the other one would mean removing information that is valuable. Third, I think this article does meet the notability requirements on its own merits - it has 11 sources now, four of them from newspapers (or online newspaper-like blogs). Some more digging and creative googling would turn up more. So, I propose expanding or leaving alone the article, not deleting or merging it. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I agree that this updated article may stand, but what should its name be? U.S. Pub.L. 113–45 or something else? The present one is worse than before, given that H.R. 3095 is no longer correct/sufficient. Will you please give the article a new name? Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I moved it to "Public Law 113-45" - that's how it will be referred to formally in other places and what people might search for it as. There are a few other articles here on Wikipedia already named in the same manner. Ideally, we'd name articles as closely to the correct name as possible, so if we need to later on, it'd probably be best as "Public Law 113-45 (United States)" since in formal and popular use no "U.S." is added in front. I'm unaware of any other places that use this naming system though, so it may never be a problem. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't see this until now :(

Hordaland (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

various changes 5/24/23

I saw this article tagged by Category:United States Government articles needing attention. Tried to make it easier to read and understand: Moved wiki links to body; Reworded bill provisions - easier for avg person to understand; Moved CBO disclaimer from the top of the section to inside the reference; Other copyedits for better readability. Hannahthom7 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)