" 
 :My comment was in no form intended as an attack; if you saw it as such, please accept my most sincere apologies.  It is, however, my personal opinion that edits like this are silly.  This particular edit did not make any improvements; it did not fix anything; it merely constituted a technical interpretation of an editing guideline (not even a policy).  One or two such edits don't make much difference, but I wanted to point this out to you just in case you decide to do it systematically, in which case it would be a waste of everyone's time (including yours) indeed.  Hence my comment (and it is in ""so many words"" simply because I have a propensity to blabber). 
 :As for the literal interpretation of the guidelines, please note that their intent is usually to prevent misunderstandings and useless reverts (like ours).  In general sense (not just within this guideline), when something is not broken, it is counterproductive to ""fix"" it.  This is why we never change British spellings to American and vice versa, switch between different date formats, or between link styles unless something obviously needs fixing or otherwise creates problems.  With Turan, no problem existed before your edit, no problem was solved during your edit, and no problem appeared after your edit.  All in all, your edit was pointless.  In such cases it is always best to stick with what's already in place, especially because there just might be other reasons why the original contrubitor chose one style over another; reasons you might not be aware of.  In case of Turan, for example, piped link style is typical in vast majority of articles about the Russian inhabited localities.  With your desire to achieve universal consistency, surely there should be some appeal in preserving the consistency which is already in place?  Cheers,— • ; August 10, 2010; 18:16 (UTC)"