Category talk:ru:CIS

Whilst engaging in a little mindless replacement of with, I came across this oddity as a subcat of Category:ru:Countries. No other language has an equivalent category, nor I think we want this one. I could see Category:Historical countries as a way to subcat Category:Countries or a per continent subcategoriztion, but this just isn't very efficient at subcatting. — Carolina wren discussió 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely delete. A beer parlour discussion should take place (if wanted) on how to sub-divide these categories, which in all honest aren't that big. Even the English category contains less than 400 entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Emptied and deleted. — Carolina wren discussió 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No other language has an equivalent category only because it is not of much interest to speakers of any other language. English entries have an equivalent category named Category:US States. All of these countries were part of the Soviet Union and continue to have close ties with Russia, and Russian is either official or widely understood in them. It would be nice to have that category in English as well, but I don’t think Americans are much interested in the affairs of the CIS. As for Russian, this is an important category. People who do not speak Russian well should not presume to say "definitely delete". Rename it if you don’t like the abbreviation (which anyone who knows Russian understands), but Definitely keep. Else delete Category:US States as well. —Stephen 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Russian entries already all had a See Also link to СНГ (save for Turkmenistan, which also lacked the Category) and Содружество Независимых Государств has See Also links to to them in return. The entries in question also had retained Category:ru:Countries, so they weren't even accomplishing the one task I thought they were.  Other than duplicating the see also links in Содружество Независимых Государств at СНГ (which I've done) and placing a link to Содружество Независимых Государств alongside the link to СНГ in the individual entries (which I haven't done), there's not really much to do to improve the linkage here, and certainly nothing that a category would improve upon.
 * As for Category:US States, Category:Cantons of Switzerland, and the rest of the topical subcategories of Category:Political subdivisions, they have one important distinction to favor keeping them as categories that Category:CIS does not, namely that they can serve to replace two categories with one. (e.g.: Category:Political subdivisions and Category:United States of America with Category:US States.
 * Finally, if we have categories for intergovernmental organizations, what's next, Category:G20, Category:African Union, Category:Mercosur? Unlike political subdivisions, where there is (except in the rare case of a codominium) only 1 parent, countries can belong to any number of governmental organizations. That sort of information is encyclopedic, not dictionaric. While I could definitely see using such categories in *Wikiatlas, if such a project existed, categories for intergovernmental organizations strike me generally as overkill for Wiktionary. — Carolina wren discussió  23:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They serve another, different purpose for some people. If you are searching for pertinent terms by category, as I have been accustomed to doing, the CIS states are now missing. When I refer to Category:US States, I am looking for that particular category. The category Category:United States of America is only useful as a place to find Category:US States. Category:Political subdivisions is also different, and thousands of areas would qualify for that. There are only a few specific states that are categorized under Category:ru:CIS, and now they are missing for anyone trying to find them by logical category. Instead of deleting the category, you should have renamed it with a name more to your liking. —Stephen 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking this to the Beer Parlour since you chose to undelete this category. — Carolina wren discussió 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Kept, at least for now. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May 2017–March 2019
This passed RFDO before, despite Stephen being the only one who wanted to keep it. It seems to me that it has no value. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)