Talk:Comprehensive Employment and Training Act

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.

Merge?

Should CETA Employment of Artists (1974-1981) be merged into this article? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT think that it should be merged into the general article about the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. It is better to be cross-referenced. Merging would be the equivalent of putting the Federal Art Project, the Federal Theater Project or the Federal Writers Project into a general "New Deal" or "Works Progress Administration" entry. In addition, CETA had numerous "titles," that is "sections" under which people were put to work. Most artists were employed under "Title VI." Mushing the titles together would make art history research much harder to do. Ginnymak (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of CETA Employment of Artists (1974-1981) into Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA)

Same topic, different title. – robertsky (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge that the two CETA Arts entries NOT be merged with a master CETA entry. I believe that historians researching the arts component of CETA will be much more likely to find the entries as they currently stand. This is particularly important because CETA Arts is simply not on the national radar in the same way that the WPA arts projects are. Apropos of this, the various WPA arts projects have their own separate entries, while they are also present in a master WPA entry. Perhaps CETA could be handled in this way, with the master entry having links to the separate CETA Arts entries. BTW Right now, the existing master CETA entry is woefully underdeveloped and needs a great deal of work. In fact, half of the content currently on the master entry comes from one of the CETA Arts entries and it's not clear what has happened to the other non-art CETA content. Tobiabj (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]