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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this type of "Socialist" "establishments" container categories does not exist for any of the other former Yugoslav republics, neither do they exist for disestablishments in Macedonia. Also, it doesn't seem to make too much sense to expand this scheme because it merely ghettoizes the middle period (1944-1990) of the Republic of Macedonia (1919-present) without any benefit that I can see. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Socialist Republic of Macedonia occupied the same territory as the present republic, bearing the prefixes "Democratic" 1944-5; "People's" 1945-63 and "Socialist" 1963-90. This was one of the constituent republics of Yugoslavia until its breakup in 1990, but that does not prevent us having categories for it. Since the extent of the polity did not change, there is no need to have multiple parents. However since "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" was the contemporary name, the annual and decade subcats need not be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2016 (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; no need to merge, as noted, because the contents are already appropriately within Category:Superhero films. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT as it wholly peripheral to the topic's notability. TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep I don't believe this is wholly or even majorly peripheral. Origin stories, especially that of a superhero, are a legitimate sub-genre of films. For superhero films, it is key to their storyline, as it tells the events of how the main character became a superhero really. This is why major film studios put in so much money into the development of origin stories, as they lead to sequels and franchises and now even extended cinematic universes. It's not as every superhero film will be included in this category, so it isn't very peripheral in my opinion. Thanks Soulbust (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it "a legitimate sub-genre". A quick unscientific search" does not turn up anything of any substance about it as a genre. The notable genre here is superhero films. Furthermore superhero films are typically expensive blockbusters to produce regardless if they are origin stories or not. I see no reason to distinguish these films as a "superhero origin film" as opposed to just a "superhero film".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent category Category:Superhero films. Its wider, better defined, and does not arbitrary define films by whether it is the film debut of a character or not. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that a film can touch briefly on the origin of a superhero, without having that be its main focus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2016 (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.
Category:List of members of the Association of Theologically Trained Women in India[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is inappropriately/unusually titled for a category and has no parent categories (indicating that the creator doesn't understand wp categorization). Listifying/renaming might be possible, but articles like Elizabeth Paul don't mention this association (except as a See also) so being a member is probably a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor(talk) 07:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Which may have been the original intent anyway. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify -- if we need it at all. We have tended to discourage even lists for membership of academic associations, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If people can find sources to build and justify a list, they can do so, but there is no reason to make this a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2016 (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.
