Talk:In the Dark

Piping and redirects
Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages says, "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article." That is, the entries on a disambiguation page should display the actual titles of the articles being linked to. For that reason, the Television section of this version of the page is preferable to the one in this version. Although the second version looks nicer, the first version displays the actual article titles, as per the guideline. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the referenced certain exceptions as listed below? In particular A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article. I think the redirects in this case qualify. older ≠ wiser 01:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That part of the guideline does say that it's sometimes okay to use redirects as links from disambiguation page entries, so that's a significant point. But it seems not to apply in this case.  The redirects for the television episodes do not link to a specific section of an article that's "more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic", i.e. a section for the "In the Dark" episode.  The Law & Order: Criminal Intent and List of NCIS Episodes redirects just link to the articles themselves, and the List of Tru Calling Episodes redirect links to the section for season 2.  In fact none of the articles have separate sections for "In the Dark", nor does it seem very likely that the episodes will get their own articles in the future.  That's in contrast to the Delta Quadrant example given, which does have its own section in the linked article. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)