Talk:Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

Just looking for suggestions on which way to proceed;
 * 1) Needs further splitting into more pages and sub-sections
 * 2) Meets wikisource standards and just needs the usual wiki-linking

Name
Shouldn't it just be called Public law 111-22? The short name, "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009" applies only to Division A.—Markles 19:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that too now that the law has been published at FDsys. Let's go with what the .txt file uses as a title "Preventing Mortgage Foreclosures and Enhancing Mortgage Credit" George Orwell III (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. If we refer to the bill's Titles page at THOMAS, the listed enactment Short Title is indeed "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009". Your point holds true in the latest bill for the 111th, Public Law 111-31, the Title page clearly shows no specific Short Title as Enacted. Again, this is all the best attempt to provide timely sourcing without the benefit of anything actually being published at GPO or FDsys to work off of. George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The legislative history contained in THOMAS should not guide us IF the language of the statute itself is explicit. The statute itself says that Division A is Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 and Division B is Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, but the entire statute itself has no short title.  Thus, I suggest, we rename this article: Public law 111-22, and all its sub-articles should also be renamed accordingly.—Markles 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I must concur. Doing otherwise would only lead to other problems (as I'm discovering with older/other articles) when future Acts refer back to this one. I agree - it should go primarily by Public Law 111-22. George Orwell III (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, the thing that troubles me as far as accuaracy goes is the inclusion of "Division B" in the TOC for Division B while Division A's TOC doesn't have a line named "Division A" in it. In the end, I'd still rather go with Public Law 111-22 because of the future legislation at some point that would refer back to or amends something in either division. George Orwell III (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC).
 * You're right to go with "Public Law 111-22." The consistency in the text for including the Division indicator is likely due to the hasty combining of the two statutes into one piece of legislation, so I wouldn't let it bother you.  Let's be precise even if it's wrong.—Markles 12:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead - I'll be damned if I try to "move" it. Where's that magic "rename" feature anyway?? George Orwell III (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)