|Information about this edition|
|Notes:||Proposal to delete, declined and kept with recommendations|
I propose page names like US Code - Title 1, § 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth, with links to higher levels as on that page. I did not include the chapter number or name, because the section numbers start with 1 in a new title only.--Patrick 27 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea.Gzuckier 27 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)
- I have a better idea (IMO). In the spirit of Wikisource:Style guide#Dependent works, shouldn't we avoid including the (often quite wordy) titles in these pages? For example, Section 815. Art. 15. Commanding Officer's Non-Judicial Punishment seems a bit excessive. There's very little chance someone would link to that correctly without copying and pasting the title once the page has actually been located — besides, it doesn't even indicate what work it's a part of. I'd propose titles along the lines of standard citation style: something like 10 USC 815. Laws that span multiple sections (but which logically should be all on one page) can use the first section number (e.g., 50 USC 421) with redirects created for the other sections (50 USC 422 through 50 USC 426). Redirects can also be used for law names, like Intelligence Identities Protection Act (currently not a redirect since I haven't implemented this scheme yet). "Structure" pages can be named, e.g., US Code - Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47. I'd like to begin making some changes along these lines before too much of the Code is put in place. We still have many, many red links and I'd like to get a simple, maintainable title scheme going ASAP. - dcljr 20:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've been bold and begun these changes, however so far I've only changed the links on this page and the titles of its immediate subpages. I haven't plowed down into the depths of the structure. - dcljr 01:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- But, you know, now I'm wondering whether we should be trying to put the entire code here at all, since it's already freely available in at least two other places where it's kept relatively up to date (according to the Wikipedia article on the Code). Unless the idea is to keep all the repealed sections, which are removed from the "official" sites. - dcljr 03:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- We should definitely keep the repealed sections. However, I think that to avoid unnecessary external dependencies, we should also have at least every section Wikipedia mentions.
- I think it's important to keep the revised sections so people can view the changes, including which particular act in what year made what change. To do that, I wonder if we could use the / with dates. For example, 50 USC 422/10 January 2006 for the revision that existed on that date.
- Boy this is a big project. Let's hope it gathers some steam. Chadlupkes 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
From where can we copy the U.S.C. ? (from the goverment ).
- How about the source? http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USCODE/browse.html
- For what it's worth, on April 13, 2010, the U.S.C. as it was compiled ending for the years 2006, 2007 & 2008, were made available on the new FDsys site HERE. The XML formats promised for many months now still haven't been uploaded yet though.
- That source is very good; it would not be difficult for a bot to transfer these to Wikisource. —Pathoschild 03:02:29, 04 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed... though the 2006 Edition on forward provided by the Government Printing Office over on their next-gen FDsys site are GPO authenticated and "born digital" (suggesting better quality and more consistent layouts from one supplement to the next base year -- or so they say). George Orwell III (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)