Talk:Hăghiac, Dofteana

, if you want a merge start a merge discussion. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As you wish,, but hopefully we can resolve this after one discussion rather than 13000.
 * 1) You keep bringing up AfD for no reason. I have no reason to take this to AfD; it's a valid redirect target. So let's drop that.
 * 2) Of course I've looked at notability guidelines: I mean, I've been on Wikipedia for almost a decade and made well over 100,000 edits, so yeah, I've bothered to inform myself along the years about what constitutes standalone notability. And let's take a look at those guidelines, shall we?
 * WP:GEOLAND says as follows: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Correct. No contest there. Every single place in Romania with legal recognition - city, town, commune - has its own article here.
 * Moving on: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG…. [these] could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Precisely. And this is just how we treat every single village in Romania (well, except two, at the moment): with a redirect to the parent commune article, or to the disambiguation page if more than one village has the same name. Interested readers type in the village's name, and find it after either one click or, at most, two.
 * Simply put, this is a logical, workable and defensible way of arranging information: there is nothing in the guidelines saying it is objectionable to have 2700 stubs on the communes (some no longer stubs, many at least in theory expandable) rather than in having 13000 of them on the villages - and most of those permanently stubs. Plus, the reader's task is measurably eased: rather than flitting about between village articles attempting to make sense of the big picture, all relevant information (names of villages, population, descriptions where available) is presented as one coherent whole. Also (have you thought this one through?) how do you distinguish between Commune A and Village A? Ro.wiki adopted the rather whimsical solution of "Commune A, County" for the commune and "A, County" for the village - but really, I hope even you can see how this is overkill.
 * Again: one has to stop somewhere in regards to separate articles on very small places. And "smallest administrative unit" is not a bad place to do it. (No one's ever complained, as far as I know.) This is how we treat several countries (Hungary, Moldova, even France, for the most part). I hope you now understand why Romania too will continue to be handled the same way. - Biruitorul Talk 15:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to add merge template (look at WP:MERGE if needed) and alerting relevant Wikiproject would be helpful (WikiProject Geography and WikiProject Romania), otherwise the merge discussion hasn't started. Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)