* reopened, clearly still on an going debate. No reason to close it until everyone has had a chance to give their thoughts. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday)
11:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- closed 1=Made into a dated soft-redirect to an existing identical work — George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
A duplicate of Public Law 113-1 I made before that was created by Navie. - Presidentman (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I made it into a soft-redirect. — George Orwell III (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- If that is a usual name, shouldn't it just be a normal redirect? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- (c'mon... you know this). Only enacted laws should be hosted here right? ...therefore the assigned numbering given to the proposed legislation is not a proper-enough name to warrant anything more than the courtesy of just a dated redir. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Only enacted laws tend to be hosted here, others have issues that preclude them, often centered around copyright or evolving work. But I can’t think of anything that precludes a law text that otherwise qualifies from being hosted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK your point is not lost on me & I agree w/you for the most part... but the nuance here is that the legislation was proposed, assigned a bill number, ultimately enacted into formal law and then [re]assigned a Public Law number whereas the instances you are alluding to deal with legislation that was proposed, assigned a bill number, but died or expired in some form -- never becoming formally enacted law.
So, historically important but failed legislation might have the need to keep the assigned bill number associated with it but in all cases of passed legislation, the formal title or assigned PL number almost always trumps the incidental & temporary bill numbering of the proposed legislation into nothing more than historical minutia primarily for completeness needed by nobody else save the academics. Its not practice commonly applied in the various authoritative sources related to this area in the U.S. so it shouldn't be practiced here on en.WS either.
Of course, non-U.S. legislation might differ -- when in doubt, a review like this on a case-by-case basis would be more than appropriate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you are expecting me to know that it was proposed legislation, that I didn't. I am not adverse to having a redirect in the form of the proposed to the final form, especially of the proposed was a renowned and popular name. With regard to proposed legislation, that conversation belongs elsewhere, but I don't see that it is a black and white issue. I had always thought that we had a concern in evolving works, but not works that have a fixed point in time. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't expect you (or any potential reader that comes to en.WS for that matter) to know a single thing about U.S. law - that is why, as I have tried to get across for quite some time now, that the inclusion of a citation bar in the header was crucial if not mandatory for [U.S.] legal works of this vein. Before Presidentman altered then proposed a deletion here , only the link to the proposed legislation (H.R. 41) was valid & working all this time. Since then, and as Presidentman opted to add later in spite of this request, the assignment of a Public Law number has taken place and its (Public Law 113-1) citation bar link worked soon afterward when it was formally published by the Government Printing Office).
As far as proposed legislation goes - your POV skirts the established rational and may put dozens if not hundreds of existing works into question (i.e. Folks here in the U.S. are expected to know the laws and regulations they must abide by --> the courts here have ruled that access to these laws and regulation must be unfettered [so they are Public Domain] --> the copyright office currently uses the same rationale to justify the exclusion of foreign, state or local laws and regulations from copyright protections [unless contrary to those entities own specific copyright provisions] --> hence we have "Edict of Government" in multiple use today}.
To summarize again but with the other POV included - folks Are Not expected to know and abide by Proposed legislation --> there is no court guaranteed copyright exclusion for something you cannot possibly be expected to know or abide by --> such legal meanderings still in flux cannot co-exist with solid, enacted & formally published laws & regulations and would invalidate the previous rationale if they somehow were --> so "Edict of Government" cannot be extended to such works (never mind any state of flux & copyright issues raised earlier). Personally, I don't want invalidate all that stuff based on the idea that a few historical legislative curiosities that never did get passed into formal law need to be included at some point in time still yet to materialize... Do You? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whoa, your extrapolation was not my point, and way from it. I was being general on "possible deletions" not talking copyright, you are prosecuting a line of argument that relates to "Edict of Government" which may be legally correct, but was neither an argument addressed nor professed by me, so cannot put anything in doubt with my few words. There is much in the way of old legislation in forms of Bills, rather than Acts; and similarly there is contemporary proposed legislation that is being released under creative commons licence. Apart from that we are just a library of some legislation, we do not show repealed or extended legislation, etc., so let us not start the abidance argument To the original question that I had, it was simple, and there has been a whole lot presumed or misrepresented about what I did ask or say. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing to debate over this particular file anymore. I recommend we [re] close this and if the type and manner of temporary assignments given to proposed legislation is still an issue for anyone in any way -- raise it fresh in a forum where that expanded scope beyond this particular file would be appropriate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)