Talk:Casualty loss

Merge “Other Casualty” under Internal Revenue Code § 165 (c)(3) into this article
I looked over the article “Other Casualty” under Internal Revenue Code § 165 (c)(3) and thought, man, that name is long and awkward and isn't this known as casualty loss? Lo and behold, Casualty loss is an article already in existence. I think “Other Casualty” under Internal Revenue Code § 165 (c)(3) should be merged into this article. It has some good content on the revenue procedures/rulings. After the merge, we can put a redirect to this article.EECavazos (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merger complete.EECavazos (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Globalize?
I'm not sure but casualty loss sounds like something that exists throughout the world rather than just the USA. If so, then the article should be expanded on those lines. If the topic is very common then the article's priority should go higher. If the impact section is expanded to show that casualty loss is not esoteric and is in demand by the common person, then the priority should then go even higher.EECavazos (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)