Talk:Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 27 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lancecbrown1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Section 301 and Super 301 both refer to the same provision. Some thoughts:

I think the name "Section 301" is too vague. Perhaps a better name for the merged article would be "Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974"
Is there enough info to keep this page separate from Trade Act of 1974?
Should probably integrate information from/with Office of the United States Trade Representative#The_Special_301_Report

Thanks. Stephen (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

I strongly agree that these articles should be merged. When I created the Section 301 article, I was just copy-pasting entries out of the Department of Agriculture's free glossary. The mistake was theirs: The original Section 301 article made no reference to Super 301, even though it had a separate entry on super 301.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is, indeed, a better name. But Section 301 and Super 301 should remain as redirects, at least until somebody decides to turn those into disambiguation pages.
I do believe that there is enough info for this to be a separate article from Trade Act of 1974.

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]