d351235422 Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Indeed as discussed with other ongoing titles, people seem to throw in everything in case it is important later on with the idea that it can all be trimmed back when things are clearer. The real problem with the page is it isn't cited. (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)) Star Wars comic books/Conan comic books/Star Trek comic books/Transformers comic books/Indiana Jones comic books: We have been working to eliminate "comic books" from article and category names and I'd rather not go down this road. (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)) . But as I say, it's probably a case of whatever works for each article.
We should be able to say "If you keep trying to force your preferred version into the article and not addressing concerns on the talk page you will be violating WP:CONSENSUS - please read WP:BRD. - mainly to avoid advance dicking around with them. Anyone want a go? Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC) From experience, I feel it's really unwise to have plot summaries of storylines when they are ongoing. And frankly, it sets up the admins as arbiters for inclusion, and that could kick off uglier arguments. Is this standard for all WikiProjects' talkpage templates? If so, then perhaps a discussion should be started "somewhere" to deprecate the current convention for "see also" sections. Some of the AfDs listed on the delsort have to be relisted from lack of input and I've had no interest in my split suggestion for Image Comics (despite flagging it here too - I'll just assume that means tacit support for it and go ahead and do it). (Which, if in table format, allows the "current" publications to be noted.) - jc37 09:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC) That sounds like the way to go to me.