Talk:2009 Major League Baseball draft

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Baseball Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protect[edit]

Draft Day 1: Might there be a consensus yet to consider applying a semi-protect for the next few days to a week, since the article has already started to receive some anon-IP vandalism and "vanity". This happens every year about this time. On the other hand it could be argued that there appear to have been some valuable and worthy edits (mostly formatting adjustments) by anon-IP's in the last few days. Just putting it out there to start the discussion, before the raiding parties join in and start to confuse things. Can we have a "neutral" admin aware and on stand-by, just in case things do get out of hand? Thanks. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Should this article be renamed to 2009 Major League Baseball First-Year Player Draft? --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditionally oppose. The current name is consistent with all the previous year's articles - see the "See Also" near the bottom. They would all need to be so renamed if the consensus agrees. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a difficult thing to do if consensus supports. It's more accurate and distinguishes itself from the Rule 5 draft and (in the years where there was one) expansion drafts. ~~Although, I don't know if there are articles covering those events.~~ Ah, yes there are. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know - I would only be "strongly" opposed to changing the 2009 article if the other previous ones were not also changed at the same time; and maybe still a residual "very weak" oppose unless there was a strong consensus to go ahead and do so, since the current name structure has been in place for many years, under the "if it ain't (seriously) broke" principle. I can understand the reasoning though. This might be a good thing to bounce off the Baseball Wikiproject (up top) for RFC or informal consensus discussion, to guage the urgency or whatever. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tate[edit]

There are as many news hits for "Donavan" Tate as for "Donovan" Tate. Can somebody find a reliable source? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to go along with the "official" MLB spelling Donavan - here. MLB would not have a drafted player spelled incorrectly for very long, if it ever did - the family or player would get it fixed. The independent and reliable sports press sources will eventually get it right as well in coming days. Since it is an unusual spelling, the spell checkers and editors are probably messing things up. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 02:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]