Talk:2008 State of Origin series

Player Changes
Can't say I'm convinced we need give such prominence to the player changes for game II as is being given by this big new box. It's of some importance now but in the overall scheme of things it will have less significance. And doesn't the curent line up box allow us to see exactly who replaced who anyway. I welcome the explanations why and wonder if that shouldn't be in body copy. Perhaps an opening paragraph before Game II result called, Game II player changes ? Thoughts - Sticks  66  07:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. More overkill. RL articles are full of it. No need for it to exist at all. There are about a thousand more worthwhile things editors could put their energy towards.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are up there now. The body copy version is somewhat "bitty" but the table is indeed overkill. Which one ? - Sticks  66  13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely the text version. I do like tables when they have a place but I don't see a place for these. They aren't even pretty. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 23:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My own school of thought is go as detailed as you want in body text. RL articles have more tables and sub-sections and crap than you can poke a stick at but not enough paragraphs of text (my usual gripe). So incorporated into a paragraph of text (not sure about the sub-headings though) is fine. The table can go.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)