Template talk:Infobox U.S. legislation

message: Does anyone know what "Titles amended" refers to? Does this refer to the USC titles that were amended? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Titles amended" = ??

message: What do we do with a bill that has not yet been voted on/passed? For example, FAIR USE Act.
--Briguyd 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can use this box for that... it might be worthwhile sitting down and working out what is needed for an infobox for current and past bills. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill not yet passed?

message: Shouldn't this be updated to use the Template:United States legal citation templates? Currently, a URL to the public law must be given manually, and the Template:USPL and freinds can't be used. What's the way to go about changing this? Int21h (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating

message: The "cite public law = " parameter is not displaying the label. (For example, see Clean Air Act (United States)). Can someone fix?  Thanks. Moreau1 (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken citation function

message: Legislation often affects the Code of Federal Regulations as well as the United States Code.  For example, the infobox for the WARN Act should include  as well as .
:Nice idea, but not practical. Many statutes are the authority for dozens or hundreds of CFR parts. e.g., Clean Air Act; also Federal Aviation Regulations. Moreau1 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Include CFR citation 

message: 68.32.224.49 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: That change needs to happen on the page where the template is used. Please make the request there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2014 

message: The box for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is misleading, in particular, the section titled "Legislative History". The fact that it passed the House by a vote of 416-0 when it was called the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" is trivial, bordering on irrelevant. There are 6 bullets points, distinctly divided, and because point 3 is "Passed the House on" and point 4 is "Passed the Senate as", to the average reader (who didn't otherwise know) it looks like the ACA itself passed the House 416-0. (Bullet points shouldn't rely on previous bullets points for their meaning.) The factoid that it passed the House 416-0 as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 could/should be included parenthetically in bullet point 1. The section should go like this:
* Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009. (Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0))
* Committee consideration by: Ways and Means 
* Passed the Senate after amendment as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39)
* Passed the House with Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
* Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
The ACA is a highly partisan, hotly contested bill. The two HISTORIC votes that really mean something are the 60-39 and 219-212. These should be featured most prominently.
Trailspark (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. That page is Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2014 

message: I didn't even know they existed until now, but  and  could use some help. (There may be other state templates?) A quick Google search for the full name of the NY SAFE Act (a piece of highly publicized New York legislation) shows that both the NY Senate and Assembly have separate bill numbers and websites, and the Senate tracks both on its website, so that will have to be dealt with. I'm still trying to figure out if we will be able to link to the chaptered law.
I think state laws are the next logical step, the current lack of the templates' visibility and usage gives us the ability to "start fresh" instead of dealing with legacy parameters and the like, and the expertise of this template's editors would be greatly appreciated. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  State legislation templates 

message: There's a typo in the final Public Law citation on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act.
The line that reads 
Pub.L. 97–3041, 96 Stat. 1411, enacted October 13, 1982
Should read
Pub.L. 97–304, 96 Stat. 1411, enacted October 13, 1982
I have no idea how templates work, but this is a simple factual error so I figured I'd point it out.
129.174.252.250 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. This will be at Talk:Endangered Species Act. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2014 

message: This info box is wider than it needs to be.  It's wider then most other side info boxes and looks a bit awkward and nonuniform as a result.  My request is that this box be narrowed to the width of others.  Thank you.
Drdpw (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2014 

message: Recently, an editor changed (with this edit ) the field that was formerly labeled "Supreme Court cases" to "SCOTUS cases". I request that this field be returned to the label "Supreme Court cases." Lay readers are unlikely to understand what the acronym "SCOTUS" refers to, and they should not be required to click on the wikilink to find out. The term "Supreme Court" is more recognizable and understandable for the average reader. And as far as I can tell, the change was not discussed before it was made. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: -- I restored the proper name instead of the acronym (as well as the informal name) but kept the wikilink back to United States Supreme Court. I think this preserves the previous contributor's overall intent/wishes while respecting your point on clarity for the typical reader (not to mention the apparent lack of discussion prior to making the change).Is this resolution suitable for you, Prototime? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks a bunch, George. That's much better. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Also . Left text-alignment restored per no discussion for this change and the effects it might of had. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, George. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Template-protected edit request on 5 September 2014 

message: The Legislative History for The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 states
"Introduced in the House as H.R. 3103 by Bill Archer (D-TX) on March 18, 1996"
Other sources including his own wikipedia page state that William Reynolds Archer was a Republican from 1969 on.
Please change his affiliation from D-TX to R-TX.
138.26.199.48 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing to change in the template itself. This would just be a parameter passed to the template. The change needs to be made to the article Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act itself. I'll do that. Thanks for reporting this. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2014 

message: Effective date is stated "January 1, 1969" - but this is a year before it became law.  Since the text of the law doesn't specify otherwise, NEPA would have become effective when signed: January 1, 1970
Paugus (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 14 November 2014 

message: Passed on the house NOT houe (S missing!)
122.106.68.132 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Wherever this spelling error occurs, it's not in this template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 5 February 2015 

message: Remove or Capitalize 'the' on 'the 105th United States Congress' / Grammar. 
Number203 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2015 

message: I suggest that the template be changed so "Public Law" is abbreviated as "Pub.L.", not "PL" as is currently the case. This could cause confusion with private laws, abbreviated "Pvt.L.". - 98.247.176.218 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't abbreviate "Public Law" as "PL" 

message: In this template, if there is a conference report, then it will show that the conference report was passed by one house in passedbody3 and the other house in passedbody4, and there are no further passedbody# parameters for any further actions. But what if one house passes the conference report, but the other house amends it, and then the first house agrees to the amendment? How do you indicate that? --Spoon! (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No way to indicate when conference report is amended 

message: The infobox certainly needs "Repeal date (if the law was repealed), replaced legislation (to  name legislation that the current one replaces), replaced by (to name legislation that replaced the current one)" parameters. --Thinker78 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Repeal date, replaced legislation, replaced by" parameters needed 

message: Could we add 
|short_description=
or
|short_description=
to the template, to provide a default short description to pages it's on? I've added a lot of short descriptions to US laws. 
--Daviddwd (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default short description proposal 

message: As noted by  over at Template talk:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation, it would be helpful to sync this with Template:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation. I'm particularly interested in authorizationsofappropriations at the moment, which is used by Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (because it's erroneously using the proposed template) but not in, say Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. II | (t - c) 22:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not clear what change you are requested - can you make a mock up in the sandbox? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  add authorizationsofappropriations similar to Template:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation + general sync 

message: Is there a rationale for the exceptionally large font size for the short title? 142.161.83.66 (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As there does not appear to be one, I would request that the non-standard titlestyle be removed. 142.161.83.66 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. This title style appears to have been in place for at least the last nine years. Here's a version from 2010 that has essentially the same size. Please establish a consensus on this talk page to make this change.    – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As there has been no objection in over two months, there is a WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. 142.161.83.66 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have removed the font-size portion of the titlestyle after testing in the sandbox and on the testcases page. The title still looks reasonable to me and appears to conform with MOS:INFOBOX, so let's try it for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size of short title 

message: This workaround is pretty ugly. Is there a better way to display a bill that was introduced simultaneously in the House and Senate? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. But adding a better way would be a useful feature, since having a house/senate version of the same bill is pretty common. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 05:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill introduced simultaneously in both houses 

message: By my read we're missing dates of committee action. At the least we should have the date a bill is referred to committee and the date of discharge from committee. For a bit more on this see Congress.gov: legislative-glossary: committee activity
--CmdrDan (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Committee Action(s): I don't see any fields for this

message: Merged :Template:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation here a couple months ago, which seems mostly fine. But looks like the "introduced in" field from the proposed template is being treated as an alias of "enacted by"? Enacted generally means "made into law", which is not really applicable to proposed legislation. (examples: American Dream and Promise Act, Bipartisan Background Checks Act, Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, and dozens more)
Some possible resolutions: we could change the wording displayed to "introduced in" across all templates, support both a "enacted by" and "introduced in" field, or pick which words to display depending on some parameter. Any of these options seem fine, my only concern is that implying proposed legislation is "enacted" is a bit misleading. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 05:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't mean to limit the discussion to just the editor that made the merge. Anyone have thoughts about changing "enacted by" to "introduced in"? I'm happy to make an edit request, but I thought it would be best to discuss beforehand. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

text: put something in the sandbox, but I don't know. It's probably not quite correct, and in any case it seems confusing because there is also an  parameter with no space. Maybe you could tweak the sandbox to show what you actually want? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff on the suggested change in the sandbox template is here. This is a minimal working fix and the results look ok, but clearing up the confusion in the parameter names would be a good idea as well. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 03:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To dispel the confusion brought about by use of  and  params I suggest "announced in" or "announced by" rather than "introduced in". Also, you have gotten rid of the  param, which will break a lot of iboxes since this template is not only used for "proposed" legislation. It's also used for done deals too, isn't it? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Going with "Announced in" or "Announced by" instead sounds fine. I'm pretty sure I didn't get rid of the  param? The test cases I linked above in my sandbox (a proposed bill, a passed bill)  both have "|enacted by=" field filled in and they rendered fine under my suggested edit. Afaik, my suggested edit of modifying the bold text while keeping all the parameters the same wouldn't break any pages. I'm not opposed to modifying params, but to keep things simple, my proposal is just to take the line | label5  = Enacted& nbsp;by and replace it with | label5  = Annouced& nbsp;in in the template. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 01:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant. You had replaced the Enacted by with the Introduced in, so I restored the Enacted by in the sandbox and either param can be used when needed. Let me know when you think the sandbox is ready, and if so we'll go live. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sounds good. I didn't realize we wanted to keep both. Added a couple of minor changes to avoid breaking the  pram from the legacy proposed templates, hope it looks ok. I had to futz around a bit with the syntax since I don't edit templates too often, but the current revision seems to ready. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 02:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a few tweaks to the sandbox. Just not sure it's being done correctly. I think the enacted_by param should not be significantly changed to ensure nothing breaks. Would love it if another editor would chime in and help us determine if it's being done right. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came this way indirectly via the Truth in Video Game Rating Act page.  Jus a FYI, at least at the moment, it's incorrectly showing "enacted by the 109th congress" when in this case it really needs to be saying "introduced by" as it was never passed.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that's a big help, ! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

text: , and we'll see how it holds up for now. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thanks for your help. The result looks good. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 23:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Enacted in proposed legislation

message: Under the "United States Supreme Court cases" section, could a link to Supreme Court of the United States be added in order for the link to not redirect every time it is clicked? Something like this:
"United States Supreme Court cases" -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please see WP:NOTBROKEN. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Should add that this should usually be done so the link will be unlinked and in bold typeface when the ibox is used in that article; however, this is a case where the ibox is not used in the Supreme Court of the United States article, so there is no need to bypass a good, working redirect. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 

message: This template is missing a parameter where U.S. legislation was put to a vote, but failed. It has only passed. I am hoping that someone can add a parameter so that it says something like Failed the House, or Failed the Senate. Interstellarity (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it failed to pass, it's usually not important to state in the infobox. It can be included in the prose of the article with a direct link of the vote. The bill's passage is what's listed. – The Grid (talk)  18:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deactivating edit request due to objection. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 23 August 2022 

message: Description of suggested change:
In Congress, under the regular order, bills are subject to three rounds of amendment between the Houses (i.e., you can potentially have a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House bill, or a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate bill).
The current infobox only allows for two rounds of amendment, so you can't input information for bills such as the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 or the CHIPS and Science Act in a procedurally accurate way.
At the very least, the infobox should include agreedbody5/agreeddate5/agreedvote5 parameters (and ideally more, to allow for those rare occasions on which the three-round limit is exceeded). Ringwiss1 (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ringwiss1 please make your required changes to Template:Infobox U.S. legislation/sandbox and test them if possible — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 30 December 2022 

message: Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victims_of_Trafficking_and_Violence_Protection_Act_of_2000&oldid=1116483707
The article set both public law url and cite public law, which the template's documentation doesn't appear to contraindicate, but this results in the "Public law" links in the output getting borked. Cybercobra (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. It looks like it's parsing from the url in  and returning . I'm not familiar with how it's programmed but a Google search shows me Module results. – The Grid (talk)  15:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug report: public law params 

message: There is currently no parameter in this template for the current status of a law. This is included in some other legal wikiboxes including Template:Infobox U.S. State legislation and Template:Infobox UK legislation. I suggest that we add a similar parameter to this infobox along the lines of the U.S. state law infobox for federal laws so that the current status of them can be easily discerned by looking at it. Olumys (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: current status of legislation 

message: A small subset of Acts – primarily authorization and appropriation Acts – form an annual series. For example, every year (since 1961) there has been a National Defense Authorization Act. I think for those kinds of annual Acts, it would be a very useful addition to the infobox to have it include links to the predecessor and successor in the annual series.
There is a related phenomenon when sometimes a well-known Act is replaced with a major rewrite. For example, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 replaced the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which in turn replaced the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. We potentially could use "succeeds"/"precedes" to handle that case too. (Right now, not in the case of the Internal Revenue Codes specifically, since currently we don't have separate articles for them, just sections in one article, although we could if the article was split up in the future.) This is a slightly different case, because a new fiscal year's Authorization/Appropriation Acts don't technically repeal the prior year's, which remains on the book – most of their provisions only apply to that fiscal year (and hence soon become practically irrelevant even if still technically law), but often provisions get attached which don't directly authorise/appropriate funds and hence can apply in future years too. However, we probably don't need to reflect that technical distinction in the Infobox (although it would simplify mapping the Infobox to Wikidata, where we probably do want to reflect that distinction in different Wikidata properties.)
Please let me know if people are okay with this idea, and if they are, I will suggest and edit. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed fields: succeeds/precedes