Talk:Democratic Party (Italy)/Archives/2022

WP:NOPIPE
I write it also here. Reverting over and over good maintenance work that has been done on this page (originally by ) to remove redirect-pipes is a disruptive behaviour (by ) that must stop. Please read carefully the Wikipedia policy about when not to use piped links: in a nutshell, it is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. On that page it also explains why is it so, and why it's an important maintenance work. Piping with direct links is not good practice, meaning that it must be avoided. Someone is trying to fix this and someone else is working against it, bringing silly excuses like there is no obligation on having redirects instead of direct links (well it is part of a WP policy...), or also weird logic somersaults like fixing links in order "to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise", it is also a time-wasting exercise to unfix direct links that are already there (this is so silly, if the policy says it's time-wasting to insert direct links, this does not imply that it's also time-wasting to do maintenance and clean-up on this bad practice!). So please stop working against this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The rule is not clear as you would like. Both of us are editing the article according to our interpretation of the rule. I reverted your edits because we are conviced that, when direct links are possible and have been part of the article for a long time, they should stay. I am not alone in this, User:Autospark also reverted you and proposed that the issue should be settled in talk page. Before that, the previous version should stay. There is a consitency in most articles about political parties in Italy (and, specifically, also this article is no exception: it is now internally inconsistent after your edits) and I would like to keep it. There is no obligation on having redirects instead of direct links, but just a suggestion. Fixing links in order "to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise", but it is also a time-wasting exercise to unfix direct links that were already there as you did. Hope User:Autospark and User:Davide King will have their say. --Checco (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More than pipes, it concerns redirects. In the past, I was like that too and always preferred to use direct links but then I thought — what is the point of having redirects if we are going to use the main links anyway? Redirects can be useful in saving some space and avoiding pipes. Checco is resorting to other stuff, which is an essay and I can sympathize because I really love me some consistency, but we actually have a guideline about this: WP:NOTBROKEN. Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken ... That is, editors should not change, for instance, Franklin Roosevelt to Franklin D. Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt just to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to Franklin D. Roosevelt if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text. Davide King (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The if does not apply because in the reverts all the links were piped rather than being direct, i.e. the actual name of the article, e.g. Catholic piped into Catholic Church|Catholic. Davide King (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The rule is not clear as you would like Where is it not clear? It looks extremely clear to me: "it is not a good practice to pipe links just to avoid a redirect" and this is exactly the situation described. direct links ... have been part of the article for a long time and then what? It's not like Wikipedia has to stay the same as it was years ago, stuff gets corrected and fixed, like we are doing now. There is a consitency in most articles about political parties in Italy consistency is not a Wikipedia policy, otherwise there would be no progress at all in any single article. The fact that 100 Italian politics articles still contain direct links is also a problem as much as this article having direct links, and all is going to be fixed in due time – obviously not everything in one go. Also, why do you cite consistency only for the subset of Italian politics? This is a general-level guideline, it's not like the Italian politics article are a special kid, a mini-bubble inside this encyclopedia and need a special rule about linking style. Fixing links in order "to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise", but it is also a time-wasting exercise to unfix direct links that were already there as you did This sentence is silly nonsense, who said that if doing A is time-wasting then undoing A is also time-wasting? Where is the logical implication behind this? Actually the policy explicitly states that what you are advocating is not a good practice, so making sure that this is avoided is definitely a good thing to do. I understand that you are just trying to justify your personal taste of having direct links. But I would like you to understand that redirects work, and should work, exactly as it is done now in the article. Otherwise, why have redirects in the first place? If there are other instances of useless direct links within this article, they also need to be fixed to follow WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)