The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kalmah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. With the only articles for this artist being albums, which are already appropriately categorized in 'albums by artist' per WP:ALBUMS, there's really no need for this eponymous category for to also include the main article and an audio file. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: An unused, malformed category that was apparently designed to support a sub-project that never materialised. Both pages currently in the cat have been listed at TfD and MfD. Illia Connell (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Virtual typefaces to Category:Digital typefaces (with a link to Computer fonts as the current entry for Virtual Typefaces does.

Nominator's rationale: The term "Virtual typefaces" is not in common usage, is unrecognized by typographers and type enthusiasts, who simply find it confusing, and was in fact simply invented by the main person who is applying it. Further, it may be perceived as pejorative. See discussion on Typophile http://typophile.com/node/102722. Additionally, it appears the category name was intended to be pejorative (see Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Virtual_typefaces).

• In my mind, the alternative to renaming would be to just delete the category entirely. Probably >99% of typefaces that have Wikipedia entries are available in digital form. The interesting and useful category would be typefaces that have Wikipedia entries which do not have digital versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphinney (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Lots of typefaces existed in the past and haven't been converted to digital, while the name issue is causing problems as shown by the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something unless these typefaces do not actually exist in the real world but only in, say, a work of literature or a videogame. ("He paused thoughtfully, trying to decide whether to use the New Boston Gothic Typeface or the Ekumen Standard.") --Lquilter (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename As long as the type face has actully been used somewhere it is no longer virtual. I somehow doubt we are likely to have articles on type faces that only exist in fiction (as in they are only mentioned in fictional works, not that they are only used to publish fiction).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Czechoslovak people of German descent to Category:Ethnic German people in Czechoslovakia

Nominator's rationale: The following text is taken from a previous discussion here. I recommend you read that discussion before commenting here.

• NEW PROPOSAL - Okay, so, I'm considering what other people are saying, and I thought of a new scheme. If I've appeared militant, don't take it that way. I have a tendency to become quickly "impassioned". Here is what I propose. Let us create a category that is titled "Ethnic German groups in Czechoslovakia". Perhaps we can simply use this one under discussion, and rename it. Then, one shall place Sudeten Germans, Carpathian Germans, expatriates, &c. in that category. This broad new category can be a subcategory of Category:Czechoslovak people by ethnic or national origin. That way, everyone is categorized correctly, and no one is accidentally mislabeled. This scheme is used for the various groups of ethnic Germans in Romania, and I think it could also work well here. It addresses my concerns, and hopefully, also addresses the concerns of others here. If others find this acceptable, I will change my nomination to this.
• So, my original proposal was to get rid of this category, because it is over categorization and factually incorrect. Prior to expulsion of the Germans, these groups had their own names. Sudeten Germans (or the older term German Bohemians), for those from the Czech lands, and Carpathian Germans, for those from Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. These categories are presently extant: Category:Sudeten German people and Category:Carpathian German people. Furthermore, these people would never have been called "Czechoslovak", which they would've found insulting, as it has connotations of pan-Slavism, something they bitterly opposed. The term "Czechoslovak people of German descent" could be used for those few remaining German-speakers who were not expelled, who were integrated with the Czechoslovak population, and for those born after the expulsion, but certainly not for those before. My proposal now, then is to convert this category into a "container category" for German groups in Czechoslovakia. It can contain the Sudeten and Carpathian categories, along with German expats and the few who were not expelled. That way, people are not getting categorized as both "Czechoslovak people of German descent" and "Sudeten German" as they are now. Not only is that a duplication, but it is also wrong, because the pre-war Sudeten Germans/Carpathian Germans would never have been called Czechoslovak, by anyone, even those they may have possessed Czechoslovak citizenship (which some of them even refused to recognize). RGloucester (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ethnic German people in Czechoslovakia. Not all the people can be adequately assigned to sub-groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but only if it is really a container category. This will require significant work on recategorising the articles currently in it: you cannot expect the closing admin to do that. I am not convinced that "ethnic" is necessary top the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think that is fine, JPL. I’ll change it. The qualifier "ethnic" is needed to make it clear that they are not just Germans from the German state. The Sudeten Germans, the Carpathian Germans, they had no connection to Germany. So, just calling them Germans might make people think they were foreign implants, which is incorrect. They were only ethnically German, not of German nationality. RGloucester (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is to match the parent categories of long standing: Category:People of German descent and Category:Czechoslovak people by ethnic or national origin. There is no reason to make this a one off name. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I’ve already discussed, this particular category is not longstanding, and was only recently created. Secondly, there are many reasons to deviate from the scheme. First of all, the people categorized all fit into a group, like "Sudeten German". Those are the common names for the groups of Germans from lands that became Czechoslovakia. There is no reason to categorize them twice, once as a Sudeten German, and once as a Czechoslovak of German descent. That is overcategorization. Third of all, these groups the Sudeten and Carpathian Germans, would never have been called Czechoslovak by anyone at all. Czechoslovak is an ethnic descriptor routed in pan-Slavism. Calling them Czechoslovak is a misnomer, and one they and the Czechs and Slovaks themselves would find insulting. Furthermore, if there must be a "Czechoslovak of German descent" category, why is there not a "Czechoslovak of Czechoslovak descent" category? The Sudeten and Carpathian Germans were just as indigenous to the lands they lived in as their neighboring Czechs and Slovaks, and the implications of the category name as it stands makes it seem as if they are imported. My proposal fixes these issues. It provides an over-arching category for the various German groups in Czechoslovakia, does not break NPOV by calling them "Czechoslovak", and allows for indigenous German groups to be categorized alongside German expats. It also allows for separation between the pre-war ethnic German population of Czechoslovakia, and the post-war one, these being fundamenetally different because of the expulsions. I suggest you read the previous discussion as well, where I went into more detail. RGloucester (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another unworkable ethnicity/descent trying to put modern labels on things that were never so defined - surprised that no one is looking for Austrian ethnicity/descent as much of what became Czechoslovakia was ruled by what was then Austria for years longer than it was ruled by Germany (which didn't exist until the 1870s or so anyway), but ethnicity only matters when it matters. very objective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Austrian" was not an ethnicity at the time that Austria ruled what became Czechoslovakia. It was a generic term that could refer to anyone of any ethnicity within Cisleithania, whether they be German or Czech or anything else. German-speakers were of German ethnicity, Czech-speakers were of Czech (called Bohemian at the time) ethnicity, Polish-speakers of Polish ethnicity. For some reason, people know don’t understand that "German" for most of its existence, did not refer to a single state. This continued even up until World War II, only dissolved with the end of Nazism, and the expulsion of the various Germans from various places. As an example, Franz Kafka, in his novel [Amerika, writes about a character called Karl Roẞman, who is constantly described as a "German from Prague". Never once is called "Austrian". That’s how it worked. Regardless, other editors seem to believe the container category is necessary, and this is the best way to do it, so deleting it doesn’t make much sense. RGloucester (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If "Austrian" didn't exist until <fill in date here>, then please purge Category:Austrian people of all those whose deaths preceded that date. Of course, Austria and Austrians pre-existed the entirety of "Czechoslovakia"'s existence so your comment is factually wrong; Siegfried Ludwig is but one counter example. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that Austrian did not exist. I said that "Austrian", prior to the fall of the Empire, did not imply German ethnicity. It could refer to any ethnic group from the Austrian half of the empire. It was a nationality, and not an ethnic category. So those people yes, can be Austrian. But that is not their ethnicity, merely their citizenship/nationality. Czech inhabitants of the empire were considered as much "Austrian" as Germans. RGloucester (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The German minority in Czechoslovakia consisted of Germans, not "Czechoslovaks of some descent". - Darwinek (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as one of the series of Category:People of German descent and Category:Czechoslovak people by ethnic or national origin. I disagree that no one called the relevant people "Czechoslovak". Sportspeople who competed in the Olympics for Czechoslovakia but who were of German ethnicity are routinely referred to as "Czechoslovak" by various sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is so (which I don’t agree with, though), they are not just "Czechoslovak". They are also either Sudeten or Carpathian German, and are already categorized as such. Since those terms already tell someone that they are from Czechoslovakia, there is no reason to categorize them twice, meaning the same thing, but doing it incorrectly (and offensively) one of the times. Furthermore, there is a different between "people of such and such descent" and a native ethnic group that is not anything of any descent, but a separate ethnic group, in this case, forms of Germans. All of the other subcategories in Category:Czechoslovak people by ethnic or national origin do not refer to indigenous groups, but to people from ethnic groups outside of the country who either moved there, or were born there. Either way, their "ethnic origin" was not native, unlike the Germans here. RGloucester (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have some pretty gross overgeneralisations in the above statement. I don't think we can say with confidence that what you have alleged is true in 100% of the cases where someone is a notable person. Your argument that "they are not just 'Czechoslovak'" is certainly one POV and it contradicts some sources—why then should we implement it? Many people would say that if a person is competing for Czechoslovakia in international sport then they qualify as being a "Czechoslovak person". There are sources that agree with this approach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have become convinced that the rename is based on an unacceptable attempt to push one POV, a POV which many people clearly do not support. Not all people of German descent at any point would have rejected the "Czechoslovak" label, and with some of these people it is not even clear that they were "ethnic" Germans, only that they had German ancestors. Some of the comments above strike me as POV-pushing that ignores the reality that not everyone fits neatrly into preconceived ideas, and that the reality is that there were many people in Czechoslovakia who had both Czech and German ancestry. Plus, there were Jews whose ethnic identity was always complexed and contested.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Savage Dragon guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial association. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American Civil War nurses to Category:??

Nominator's rationale: This one is an odd-ball. It seems to be a by-time-period diffusing category of Category:American nurses, but it is also sub-catted under Category:women in the American Civil War and Category:Female wartime nurses. A quick glance suggests all of the current contents are female, but this doesn't have to be the case, though there were indeed male nurses who served during this time: http://www.malenursemagazine.com/historyofmalenurses.html.

I'm not sure the best thing to do here. I could see a few options:

1. rename to Category:American female Civil War nurses, and create a sibling cat of Category:American male Civil War nurses, or
2. Keep as is as a gender-neutral by-time diffuser of American nurses and American Civil War medicine, but remove the "female" parents, and instead provide a see-also link at the top for those two cats if necessary.

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For now remove female parents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is: we never hear of male nurses at this time period. If you can prove me wrong, then I'll support your option #2. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did you read the link I posted above? In any case, I'm also a fan of option two, as even if we don't have any male articles yet - but could in the future, and no reason to divide by gender here. We can't keep as is, as you can't have a category that has both gendered and non-gendered parents and a gender-neutral name - it doesn't make sense - so you'd have to rename it in any case. Nurse != woman. (pulling quote from link as FYI: "In the middle 1800’s the United States was embroiled in the Civil War. Both the Confederate and Union Army had males serving as nurses although we only hear about the Union volunteers, who were predominately female. The Confederate Army had assigned thirty men in each regiment to care for the wounded. This could have been the start to the modern Combat Medic of today. The Union also had males designated as nurses or serving as such." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I missed the link; sorry about that. Option 2 it is. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm pretty sure there were male nurses in the Civil War. I don't think Walt Whitman was the only one. --Lquilter (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: There is no need for gender in this category. pbp 16:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This nomination is disruptive in my opinion - why do we have to waste time talking about it? - It is clearly a mistake in categorization (gender neutral cats can never be children of women cats). Wouldn't it have been much better to re-categorize the entries of this cat (See for example Louisa May Alcott) and then simply remove the two women-related parent-categories from this cat before starting this time-sinkhole-discussion?

Now since this is under discussion we are prevented from fixing the problem until the discussion is over. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was intended to be a gender neutral cat, given its parenting and contents - but whatever. Not trying to waste any time, if you don't wanna vote feel free to ignore. just with all the hoopla, I felt it wise to bring it here for discussion, but am happy for a speedy/snow close if an uninvolved admin desires. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• withdraw Ok, due to some other changes, this nom no longer makes sense. The category is only contained in non-gendered parents, so there is no need to do anything ( in effect, option 2) has more or less been enacted. We can close and withdraw the nomination to do something - the needful has been done.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Devil May Cry characters to Category:Devil May Cry

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles are in this category. Overcategorization leads to confusion and increases navigation complexity. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: There are three articles in this category. If this category must to be deleted other subcategories from Category:Video game characters by game must to be deleted too. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are repeating the "other stuff exists" discussion which has very little validity. I see to no reason to delete other computer game character categories unless they are proven unhelpful, like this one. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No; I didn't said to keep this category, I only said if this category will be deleted other must to. I don't see any complexity in navigation. By the way, it's very useful since I can find it this navigating in Category:Capcom characters, and Category:Action video game characters. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understood as much in your first message, my friend. My reply is still what I said earlier: What you say is an "other stuff exists" argument. One variation is "Keep this because other stuff exists", another is "Other stuff like this exist, so delete them all." Both are rejected. Maybe you should read the article to better understand this fallacy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:SMALLCAT -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:SMALLCAT states: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." Well, it has a lot of potencial to grow since Devil May Cry is an ongoing series with several character; and Category:Video game characters by game proves that this category is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately, I do not think there is any chance of having, say, four additional articles about Devil May Cry characters in the future. Also, the category shows that, unlike what you claim, this not an accepted standard: We have over 60,000 articles about video games (if I am not mistaken) but we do not have 60,000 sub-categories titled "Category:[Video game name] characters". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's a very popular series, and many games can be released in a near future. Other characters, like Trish and Nero has been well received by critics, and could have it own articles; it's only necessary to collect sources for this. And, well, we have more than 76 country articles but we have only 76 subcategories, and of course we have many more artist articles than 5,458 and the same happens in this case. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Can be" is WP:CRYSTAL. However, even if a million games like these come out, as long as the characters are like this, they won't have any article. For instance, what would an article about "Trish" is going to have? Nothing Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of an established category tree as per the exception clause of WP:SMALLCAT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History books about economics to Category:Books about economic history

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories Tim! (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- I am an economic historian. I find that there are studies of the economics of history and those of the history of economics, but they are both economic history. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - much clearer. Neutrality^talk 06:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; obviously duplicate in the historians' mind, and by being separate, they confuse the layman by telling him that the two aren't the same. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: pbp 16:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Images in the public domain in the United States but not in its source country to Category:Images in the public domain in the United States but not in their source countries
• Propose renaming Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in its source country to Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries

Nominator's rationale: Grammar: "images" gets a plural, not "its source country", but I'm hesitant to take this to a speedy because this is an important project category. Since all of the images are here because they're tagged with templates, renaming will require nothing technical beyond quick-and-easy edits to a couple of templates. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:PD US no notice to Category:Pre 1978 without copyright notice US public domain images as the latter is the older, large and more descriptive category. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Pre 1978 without copyright notice US public domain images to Category:PD US no notice
• Propose merging Category:PD US no notice to Category:Pre 1978 without copyright notice US public domain images

Nominator's rationale: These categories appear to be identical to each other — Category:PD US no notice is for images tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}}, and Category:Pre 1978 etc. is for images "published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978, which causes the work to be irrevocably in the Public Domain", which is precisely the scenario given by {{PD-US-no notice}}. I have no opinion whether we merge Pre 1978 into PD US, or vice versa, or put them at a third location; please note that these categories are placed by a template, so merging these categories will be really simple from a technical point of view. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.