Talk:Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Is this bill actually nicknamed the Cromnibus? Regardless, the Dec. 2014 CRomnibus is significantly more well known by that name, and I think this should be removed. 65.112.10.52 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The omission of the committee reports is problematic. These appropriations bills fork out a lot of important information into committee reports. See here and look at Front Matter-Division B PDF for example. See for example the CRS report The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction page 13 which notes that "In report language,41 the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations may provide more detailed directions to the departments and agencies on the distribution of funding among various activities funded within an account". II | (t - c) 02:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is two days old - it is in no way complete. Why don't you go ahead and add information from the committee report? HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean for this to just be criticism - you've done some great work on the article. I doubt I'm as tuned in as you are, so I was hoping you could confirm and add a link to these reports if it makes sense. These are also primary sources so I don't know how much they should be used for content but I think they should definitely be noted. I'm sorta hoping/wondering if Congress has something that looks more official than these too (these have Xerox handwritten in the top-right) - did you have a chance to take a look at them? II | (t - c) 19:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211200621/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr3547-113/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr3547-113/show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]