Talk:Sărdăneşti, Mehedinţi

Here are the issues I raise: the constant practice over here, regardless of the poor choices they make on Romanian wikipedia, has been not to create separate articles for villages and communes, but to keep all info in the commune article. Why? The reason is very simple: an expanded article on a commune would in any case feature all the relevant info on the component villages; an expanded article on a village that would aim to add to that would quite clearly result in the kind of unintelligent info that abounds on Romanian wikipedia (area codes, family histories, trivia of all sorts). This inanity is perfectly illustrated by the article here and its corresponding "translation" here: a permastub where the only info that goes beyond "X is a village in Y" (note how the commune itself isn't even mentioned!) is how to dial a telephone number and an OR claim about how elevation is to be determined using Google Earth (!?). Both are indicated as "References", but they refer to nothing in the text. And in fact the one sentence that can even be considered article content is unformatted and ungrammatical!

If there is anything more relevant than that to be picked up on Sărdăneşti, it can in any case fit into a section of the Bala article (which, in any case, should also feature it). The model on Romanian wikipedia, which, even there, is terribly inconsistent in application, has so far resulted in not one decent article. Dahn (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument about "permastubs" and a general lack of sources is very persuasive. I reluctantly concede that this article will likely never be anything more than unreferenced trivia. Thank you for your thought-out response. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)