Talk:Major League Baseball draft

Requesed move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE NOT MOVED -- as there was no consensus for the move per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering moving Major League Baseball Draft, but I want to see if anyone has a reason I shouldn't. My problem is that this isn't the title of the event, and never has been. I'd like to move the article to First-Year Player Draft, since that's the official title (I don't think there's any reason to add "baseball" or "MLB" qualifier, since the name is unique as it is). I also think the current title is a problem because MLB has multiple drafts, and it could just as easily refer to the Rule 5 Draft. I realize the page has just been moved here, and that I'd be creating a redirect nightmare, but I'd be willing do take on fixing that in order to have the article in the right place. Thoughts? --djrobgordon 05:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just officially proposed this move, so if anyone objects, speak now. --Djrobgordon 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose. Doesn't seem to be any crying need for a change, and maybe there is a better choice. This is what most people think of when they think of the baseball draft; it is the "Rule 5" draft that is always identified as such, not just "baseball draft".  The proposed new name does not identify the sport, and people looking at just the article name aren't going to know which of many possible sports uses in its own jargon that terminology, since many other sports also draft "first-year players".  This is a different situation from "Rule 5 Draft" where nobody will be confused; everyone won't know it is baseball, but nobody is going to assume it is something else.  Gene Nygaard 17:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are all good reasons to keep this as a redirect page, but the article should still exist under its proper title. Baseball World Series exists as a redirect to World Series because its a possible search term for someone attempting to differentiate it from, say, the World Series of Poker or the World Series of Darts. However, it wouldn't be appropriate to have the article under that more descriptive but incorrect title.


 * As for whether or not the name could refer to other drafts, I'd argue that it's an accurate description of them, but that this is the only event with that name. Or to be anal about it, First-year player draft can refer to any number of drafts, while First-Year Player Draftcannot. For the record, the NFL Draft and NBA Draft go by those names. The NHL's version is called the NHL Entry Draft. Any confusion as to what sport is being discussed should be cleared up by the fact that the word "baseball" appears in the first sentence of the intro.


 * I'm not very familiar with pro sports outside of North America. If you can point to a major sports league somewhere else with an identically title draft, I could see moving this article to First-Year Player Draft (baseball), but otherwise I would still support the current proposal. Rather than looking for a compelling reason to move the article, I think there should be a compelling reason to have the article title be a description of the event, rather than its actual name. Djrobgordon 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I'm not very familiar with MLB's draft system, but it seems like the draft that this article talks about is usually called "the draft", and when it's necessary to distinguish it from the Rule 5 draft, it's called "the amateur draft." Its official name is the First-Year Player Draft, and that's what articles on mlb.com call it, but the rest of the press doesn't use this name very often, as far as I can tell. Since articles are named for common use rather than official title, I don't see a strong reason to move the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondary phase request
I'm wondering if someone with more knowledge of the draft could add some information on the so-called "secondary phase" drafts that took place during the '70s and '80s. I'm working on the page for Pete Redfern, who was the first pick in the 1976 secondary phase, and don't know where I should direct the link. -Dewelar (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary source request
Would it be possible to post a link to whatever MLB page might contain the official rules for the first-year player draft? MikeLHenderson (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Name change?
Someone moved this page to its current location with the lower case "draft" without discussion. The page was properly capitalized before. "Major League Baseball Draft" is actually the name of an event and thus each word should be capitalized. Spanneraol (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Competitive Balance Picks
I just noticed there's no mention of the new Competitive Balance picks from the current CBA and the clubs' capacity to trade them. The page really has a number of issues, but I think it's the most glaring factual one at this point. I can try to write it up if there isn't someone who is overly eager to do so. Xsturmin8 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Supporters offered no policy or guideline-based reasoning for moving the page. Opposers citied several guidelines for why it should not be moved and in the end have the stronger argument. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Major League Baseball draft → Major League Baseball Draft - Years ago, this page was moved from Major League Baseball Draft to its current title, without benefit of an RM. This unilateral page move should be undone.

I should point out that related Year-MLB draft pages, were also unilaterally moved to lowercase, without benefit of an RM, years ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Note - The last RM held here, called for keeping the uppercase Major League Baseball Draft version. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that that informal 2007 discussion did not find for uppercase; just not yet a consensus to lowercase it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Capitalized The "Major League Baseball Draft" is a proper noun. A proper noun is a noun that serves as the name for a specific place, person, or thing. The Major League Baseball Draft is a thing. It's an event that is held every year. Proper nouns should be capitalized. Reviewing sources for this is tricky since ngrams and other statistics devoid of context can be misleading. How this is phrased can determine if it should be capitalized, but the event is frequently capitalized by reliable sources. - Thanks Nemov (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also easy enough to cite the frequent lowercase versions in news:, , , as well as the "MLB draft" short version , , . Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Some relevant guidelines are MOS:CAPS: Naming conventions (capitalization): —Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The great majority of sources use lowercase draft in this context, so per MOS:CAPS we use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, this reminds me of a certain Wild Card discussion. Similar to that, I support the move- it's a proper noun in reference to a specific event.  - Skipple   ☎  22:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable source usage strongly contradicts your opinion, which is based in neither sourcing nor our WP:P&G. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate about whether something "should be" considered a proper name; if the sources do not consistently treat it as something to capitalize then Wikipedia does not either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To faciliate discussion here, can you provide the rationale from this "certain Wild Card discussion"? —Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Wikipedia currently has articles about (for example) the Major League Baseball postseason and the Major League Baseball schedule. Like the Major League Baseball draft, they are not capitalized, nor should they be. We can make an argument that MLB has a draft, a schedule, and a postseason annually, thus these items "must" be proper nouns, but that's arbitrary and subjective. As noted above "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." I don't believe that has been demonstrated here for "Major League Baseball Draft", but happy to revisit if I missed something or more comes to light. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS (especially MOS:SPORTCAPS and MOS:SIGCAPS). This term is not consistently capitalized in independent, secondary, reliable sources; in fact, usage in sources is overwhelmingly lower-case . This is a WP:TALKFORK at best and should be procedurally closed, since there is an ongoing RfC about this very question (moved from WP:VPPOL to its own page due to length of input): Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles (not limited to NFL). WP:EDITCON and WP:TITLECHANGES policies also apply; page names this stable for this long should not be moved absent a compelling P&G and RS basis for doing so. This topic is not magically exempt from guidelines and sourcing. PS: Google Scholar also has significant results for this topic ; as expected, "draft" in the MLB context is massively lowercased in running text, with "Draft" occurring almost exclusively in title-case headings (only about 1 source out of 10 is an exception).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand that discussion was supposed to have a broader scope than just NFL. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was opened with one, but various participants (mostly from the pro-capitalization angle) have dragged all the sports [d|D]raft stuff into it. While I suggested myself that this might need to come down to some separate RMs, I made the point right then and there that pre-emptively opening RMs on them in mid-RfC would likey be seen as WP:POINTy, especially after objections (including ANI noises) were already registered there to moving such pages in mid-RfC (including objections by the very opener of this RM).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unilateral page moves during the ongoing-RFC, is what was problematic. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So is this for the same reasons, though I've taken this to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pointy? no. Proper procedure (going the RM route), is key. If the result 'here' is to 'not move'? then that'll be that. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If no evidence is provided to support the notion that it's a proper name, then there's little reason to move. The default is to use sentence case unless it's consistently capped by sources. The fact that it was moved unilaterally in the distant past is not a sufficient reason to move without further evidence. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no evidence MOS:CAPS applies here at all. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Nemov and Skipple. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Skipple has since struck their support. —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and specifically, MOS:SPORTCAPS and MOS:SIGCAPS. This ngram evidence is quite context specific. Even though it might be frequently capitalised in sources, it is clearly not being consistently done to an extent that would cause us to capitalise it here (per P&G). Asserting that it is a proper noun|name because it has a specific referent is both naive and factually incorrect. Specificity of referant is a property of a proper name but not a defining property. Common names become specific through the use of the definite article (the) and/or descriptors (adjectives or attributive nouns). The Major League Baseball D|daft is inherently descriptive - an annual draft conducted by the Major League Baseball league. It is made specific through using the definite article and the attributive noun phrase Major League Baseball. However, unlike a proper name, it is not invariable in number but increases each year. Even though 2022 Major League Baseball draft might be unique, it is still descriptive (a draft conducted by the Major League Baseball league in 2022) and not a proper name. Uniqueness is not a defining property of proper names and many proper names are not unique (eg John Smith). The "one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple people eater" may be unique but it is still descriptive and not a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as the proper name of an event. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support by the research done, and explanation by, . This well-known draft, held yearly, has a recognized proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On the basis of what evidence? Actual source usage rather overwhelmingly disproves the idea that sources consistently (or even very commonly) capitalize this as a proper name . You appear to be making a WP:OR (or even WP:POV promotional) claim without any evidence to back it up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have made your point multiple times on this thread alone. Is it necessary to keep baderging every person who disagrees? This is bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING.  - Skipple   ☎  19:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If people make counter-factual claims (as in this case) or simply make claims that aren't supported by sources yet, then they should be asked to provide sources that back up their claims. Someone needs to ask them to do it, and I am willing to be such a someone. Capitalization-related RMs produce more such unsupported claims than pretty much any other type, and this leads to more requests for people to back up their claims. Just how it goes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - After looking deeper, (and, you know, actually reading the article) the official name of the draft used by Major League Baseball is "the Rule 4 Draft" or at times the "First-Year Player Draft". While there appears to some consistency with the usage of this term for capitalization (capital D - see Ngrams), this term is distinctly different from the title of this article which is clearly the common name. I'm striking my previous support for the change, as I'm less convinced of the term "MLB Draft" as a proper noun.   - Skipple   ☎  05:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Skipple's observation. The official name given this draft by Major League Baseball looks to be "First Year Player Draft" (uppercased as a proper name). Combined with the ngrams for the unofficial name that Wikipedia uses, an 'Oppose' seems accurate, and the two alternate names should be included in the first paragraph and boldfaced as alternate names. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * agree with adding to the lead. I went ahead and added this, assuming no objection.  - Skipple   ☎  04:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good; I created a couple of additional redirects to help people find this (Rule Four Draft, rule four draft, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I edited the lead to reflect dominant uses in sources, where "Rule 4" and "Rule 5" are treated as proper names, but "Rule 4 draft" and "first-year player draft" are often lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ...why? The Ngram link you supplied for "Rule 4 draft" shows strong preference for capital "D" draft the past 10 years and I would argue "first-year player draft" is fairly non-conclusive. Here's some links to sources using the term "Rule 4 D raft" in common parlance:
 * "In Major League Baseball, the Rule 4 Draft is the official term for the First-Year Player Draft, which is an amateur draft that is held every year."
 * "In June of each year, Major League Baseball conducts its amateur draft (known as the “First-Year Player Draft” or the “Rule 4 Draft”)."
 * "Major League Baseball's annual Rule 5 Draft, held each December at the league's Winter Meetings..."
 * (this source is referring to the Rule 5 Draft, but same idea) "On Wednesday night during the annual MLB Rule 5 Draft, nine players switched hands regarding the Philadelphia Phillies organization, including four departures during the Minor League phase."
 * Even if we are to ignore that, we are referring to the official name of the draft, not the name in common parlance. MLB clearly defines the draft with a capital D.    - Skipple   ☎  19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, no problem with what name is the official name, but that doesn't make it a proper name. We look to independent sources for that.  The n-grams for Rule 4 Draft show consistent capitalization for "Rule 4", but not at all for "Draft", though there was a big blip in 2017/2018.  That official page you point to caps a ton of stuff other than proper and official names, so isn't really informative. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The Draft is an event put on by MLB every year. It is capitalized by the league itself in every headline and article on that page... It is a televised event on the MLB network under the capitalized name . To say that it isn't a proper name is simply ignoring multitudes of evidence. Spanneraol (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But you're OK simply ignoring this larger set of evidence? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't evidence of anything as it doesnt show the context of any of those mentions.. are they talking about the official Draft itself or just someone that was drafted? The mentions on the league website are more meaningful as to how the event is described. Spanneraol (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The league website is not independent, and contrary to MOS:CAPS' guidance to look at usage from independent, reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The league website is a good source to WHAT THE THING IS ACTUALLY CALLED. Spanneraol (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Capitalization is purely style, it doesn't change what it is actually called. As currently written, the MOS doesnt bind WP to an organization's apparent preference on capitalization. —Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When you say "are they talking about the official Draft itself or just someone that was drafted", you're suggesting that in some contexts we should use lowercase, and some not. If your theory is right, you should be able to find examples in these many books of when not to capitalize, so we can understand what those context differences that concern you might be.  For example, which of these from sources would you say are not "talking about the official Draft itself" and that's why they're lowercase?:
 * "...the Major League Baseball draft is primarily a behind-the-scenes affair that has only recently been broadcast...
 * ...the first father and son to be selected in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft.
 * ...in the United States are subject to the Major League Baseball draft and cannot sign...
 * The drafts of the NFL and NBA are all glitz, while the Major League Baseball draft is a workmanlike three-day affair that only found its way to limited live coverage on television in 2007.
 * If these are the contexts where lowercase makes sense, what are contexts where it's a proper name and needs capitalization? If you're saying to capitalize when referring to the name of the televised show, as opposed to the process (which is the main topic of the article), I'd say that's OK; but only when talking about the show, which is not what the articles are about. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dicklyon. Tony (talk)  02:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCCAPS / MOS:CAPS. Apparently mixed and mostly not capped in WP:independent reliable sources. A lack of an RM discussion is not a sufficient basis to overturn a title that has been stable for years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Further comment: A quick look at the article's history shows that the above mention of a move "years ago" was an understatement. At the time this RM discussion began, the most recent renaming was on 29 September 2014‎ – basically a decade ago. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles has closed in favor of lowercase for the NFL draft, bringing it in line with most others including this one. Dicklyon (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Note  - the aforementioned RFC has 'no bearing' on this page's title, per clarification by the RFC closer. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To accurately quote The Wordsmith: As the RfC closer, I can confirm that the close applies only to pages related to the NFL draft and has no impact on other leagues or sports. There was some discussion of them at the RfC, but was unrelated to the RfC question or the consensus reached. Anyone trying to use it to bypass discussion on other articles is not interpreting the close correctly. To note the close and its implication to consistency with NFL articles is not trying to use [that close] it to bypass discussion here. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalisation of "First-Year Player Draft"
This was introduced into the lead in the capitalised version. The capitalisation is touched upon in the above discussion. Using the capitalised version has been challenged and there is an burden to show that capitalisation is necessary. Per MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. This is a descriptive name phrase that is not inherently a proper name. While it is not disputed that this may be the preferred capitalisation of MLB, the MLD is not independent so this is irrelevent to the criteria given in MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note the ngrams, which affirm that uppercasing is correct. It is literally the proper name that Major League Baseball calls their draft. This fact is certainly not irrelevant to the discussion, it makes this a commonsense capitalization. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please note this ngram for the hyphenated form which was the text initially added and which was provided in the above RM discussion. Also see this ngram that compares the hyphenated and unhyphenated forms. This is certainly not a case of consistent capitalisation. MOS:CAPS is very clear that capitalisation is determined by usage in independent sources. MLB is not an independent source. The capitalisation applied by MLB is irrelevant to how WP determines whether this term should be capitalised in prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ? I don't know what the issue is. This is similar to the formal name of the National Football League draft, Annual Player Selection Meeting. Baseball had to call their draft something, which then created the proper name being discussed here. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)