Talk:2005 in baseball

Baseball High‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

August 31[edit]

"August 31 - ...who lose 10-5 to the St. Louis Cardinals at Dolphins Stadium..."

At the time, it was Pro Players Stadium, so I think that the article should say Pro Players Stadium. --Chitomcgee 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC) PS-Also the September 17th blurb.[reply]

Contradiction of other years in baseball articles[edit]

The whole situation is about the final standings and how it's presented. However another contradiction is the size of the article. Articles should be 32 KBs or less. It's not like the standings are completely erased. The 2005 standings is a new article. Until we can have an article 32 KBs or less with the standings, it should stay the way it is. Kingjeff 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way the articles are going to end up under 32K is if you break up events into month-by-month articles, which would render the pages nearly useless (once you go month-by-month, contributors are going to start adding endless details on every game, and then we'll be heading toward day-by-day articles). Again, the Wikipedia guidelines on article size clearly state that even at 50K, articles might not need splitting up. I think we can get the pages down to under 50K, but 32K for a well-covered year is going to be virtually impossible. I'll add that a majority of featured articles are over 40K, and about a quarter of them are over 50K (Microsoft, featured last week, is 88K), so there seems to be a widely accepted view among contributors that articles of that size are not necessarily too long. MisfitToys 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we get rid of that 32 k guide? Kingjeff 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=28710
- In 2005 in baseball on 2011-05-25 08:09:05, 404 Not Found
- In 2005 in baseball on 2011-06-12 03:46:13, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]