Talk:Italian cuisine

This page doesn't have a paragraph about salumi, very important in Italian cuisine; I think it would be a very good idea to add this paragraph. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, are you suggesting a WP:MERGE or just adding a note about salumi to this article?--Un assiolo (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: WP:MERGE. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: alternatively, the note is also fine. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with turning the article Salumi into a redirect (it is an encyclopedic article anyway). You can always create a new paragraph about salumi that deals with cured meats. I don't see where the problem is. --LukeWiller (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@LukeWiller: what I said. But if this isn't possible, a note about salumi to this article and the non-deletion of the salumi page is also fine in my opinion. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added the term salumi to a pre-existing sentence about cured meats. If there are no objections, I will now remove the merge templates.--Un assiolo (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: no, it's not enough! A paragraph is necessary, salumi in Italy are very important. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the article itself only has three sentences of prose and is mostly just a list. So there isn't much to merge. I have now copied most of the prose into this article. Is that sufficient?--Un assiolo (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: good work! JacktheBrown (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nyn218 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nyn218 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This is wonderful! JacktheBrown (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Jean-de-Nivelle, according to MOS:SECTLINK: "... a redirect can be created when the occasion arises." My edit is 100% correct. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure we've been through this before, Jack.

From WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN, we should keep links short and simple, making use of redirects instead of piped links except in some special cases.

MOS:SECTLINK says, "It is bad practice to create links in article text using the format [[Article#Section]]; navigation then becomes difficult if the section is expanded into a new article. Instead, link using a redirect to the main topic ..."

Further,

• In a redirect page named "History of Topic", use #REDIRECT [[Topic#History]].
• In another article, use [[history of Topic]].
• Avoid: [[Topic#History|history of Topic]].

So, in this example, we already have a redirect at "denominazione di origine controllata e garantitadenominazione di origine controllata e garantita" that points to a section at Denominazione di origine controllata#Denominazione di origine controllata e garantita (DOCG). Using a piped link here is contrary to MOS:SECTLINK as explained above: just use the pre-existing redirect. The version you prefer displays the same text as mine, and reaches the same target page, but is bulkier, and harder to update if the target should change.

The same applies here. "Extra virgin olive oilExtra virgin olive oil" is already a redirect to "Olive oil#Commercial grades", so adding the piped link complicates the markup without changing the displayed text or the target, but has the added disadvantage of making the link more laborious to update if the target should change in the future. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

PS In case you're not clear about the difference between a piped link and a redirect, see the articles Wikipedia:Piped link and Wikipedia:Redirect. They're not the same thing! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle: you're 100% right about this, I didn't know there was already a pre-existing redirect. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that long mentions of the unesco have rightly been removed from the lede, but I think a brief mention is appropriate there. Julietdeltalima, does this work for you? Valereee (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! It really is a big lede-worthy deal! But the length of the WP:PRIMARY quotation from the nomination, the non-WP:NPOV nature of the editorial commentary, and the random boldfacing aren't okay in the lede or anywhere else, and the fact that a named account and at least two TAs have contributed nearly exactly the same problematic text is problematic. I've only been able to edit on mobile this week and haven't been in an environment suitable for composing an appropriate report or alternate proposed text ("family"-type issue; pacing around various public areas trying to keep busy but not able to write on the same topic for long periods or shift between screens, plus internet connectivity is volatile), but the multiply-added proposal isn't even readily copy-editable. Thanks SO much for your help here, Valereee! I apologize for not being able to take a stab at it myself and I really appreciate your kind intervention. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all! The news came to my attention this morning and I came in to see if it had been added to the article, and I saw that there'd been a kind of bizarre addition that focused for unknown reasons most heavily on Pier Luigi Petrillo. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Along these lines, I've moved down the infobox down to the section that mentions UNESCO status. As far as MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE goes, if we want the reader to be able to identify key facts [about the subject] at a glance, I hardly think the reference number, inscription, region of UNESCO listings... so on are particularly key facts to Italian cuisine as a concept. Moreover, to my eye it clutters the lead. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

"Renowned" in the lead (it's sourced, UNESCO). ~2026-16757-7 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)