Talk:2008 State of Origin series

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 State of Origin series article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Australia: New South Wales / Queensland / Rugby league Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2008 State of Origin series is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rugby league (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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 -Sticks66 07:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both are up there now. The body copy version is somewhat "bitty" but the table is indeed overkill. Which one ? -Sticks66 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. •Florrie•leave a note• 23:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]