Talk:2005 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject College basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball 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.College basketballWikipedia:WikiProject College basketballTemplate:WikiProject College basketballcollege basketball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Basketball

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball 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.BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject BasketballTemplate:WikiProject BasketballBasketball articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[NAIA Women's Basketball Championships#Division II|2005 NAIA Division II women's basketball tournament]] The anchor (#Division II) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Regional names

Why exactly does this article use the "East", "South", etc. names? The NCAA used only the city names to refer to regionals during this period. IMO the article should be changed to use the official names of the regionals; injecting one's own preferred names for the regionals isn't really encyclopedic. - PhilipR (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summaries

These summaries should probably be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic and less daring in seeking to provide interpretation or to simulate sportswriting. E.g., "In one of the most thrilling NCAA basketball games ever, Illinois pulled off an improbable comeback to break the hearts of Wildcats fans everywhere." That's not really written to emphasize the factual. I realize this change in tone can lead to unbearably dry articles that recite fact after fact without the author's interpretation, but hopefully there's still a way to write the facts that isn't too dull. - PhilipR (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]