Talk:2011 Major League Baseball draft

Rounds 2 through 50?

It's against our standard to list all 50 rounds. We're not exactly talking about the NFL draft, where most players play at the highest level. Many of these guys won't sign as they head to college, and many who do sign will not become notable. I think it would be better going backward to list all draftees who ended up notable (by making an MLB debut) rather than listing every single pick, which is excessive. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a proffesional draft and all players are notable. Just because it doesn't get all the coverage like the NFL draft does, doesn't mean it was not important. Even the players who do not sign and go to college are notable because they might get drafted again. This way players may be drafted multiple times, by different teams, in different rounds which is notable. Look at other baseball profiles where players have been drafted multiple times and it is noted in their profiles. I am working on completing this list and by keeping it collapsed saves a lot of space and will not clutter the page. Please keep this information up and I will have it done soon. Thanks. Carthage44 (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But not all players drafted in the MLB draft are notable. That was my point. Lots of these guys won't sign. Lots of them will top out at A ball. We only mention multiple draftings for players who end up notable. We could do a more complete job by going back and adding all MLB players to a section after the first round section, but listing all 50 rounds is excessive and provides no context on who those people are. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The MLB draft is 1000+ people, perhaps 100 of which will make the majors on a good year. It just takes away resources to add in all those extra players who most likely will not reach our notability standards. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but space it out in separate pages (i.e. [rounds 1–10], [rounds 11–20], much like how team all-time rosters are being split up). If keeping just the first round is notable, why aren't all the other rounds? If the subject (the subject being the draft) is notable to do a list on, why not do all rounds? Why keep it incomplete? —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the subject that Wizardman and Muboshgu are trying to sell is not the actual subject. A good number of the players in the first round of the 1992 Major League Baseball Draft aren't notable, but Raúl Ibañez, who was selected in the 36^th round is (to be fair, he is listed as "Other notable players", but players like Jeff DaVanon and Craig Dingman, who are notable, were drafted in later rounds). It's WP:CRYSTAL to say that all the players from round one on won't meet our standards in the coming years. It's not even the subject. The subject is the draft. As it stands, the list is incomplete. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These lists are supposed to be incomplete. I would be okay with the idea of listing the 1st round (including compensation round) and all notable individuals drafted in later rounds to each draft page, but listing every single pick? That's ridiculous and excessive. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carthage44 is not editing in good faith, and I have requested administrator intervention here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am countinuing to work on completing this page. The first round is NOT the only notable round as the majority of major league players come from rounds 2 through 50. If you know anything about baseball, every pick in noteworthy that is why I am completing this draft page. I am working hard on completing this page as fast as I can. Muboshgu is not editing in good faith and I have requested administrator intervention here. Carthage44 (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said, the full listing of people drafted is excessive and not encyclopedic. If you want to discuss that further here, that's fine, but what you're doing is undoing my reverts, and that's bad faith editing. I'm undoing your edits that don't conform to the existing consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Muboshgu. Let's not make this page ridiculous by adding hundreds of non-notable names. Any late-round pick who proves notable can be added later, as we've done before. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys don't get carried away with this argument.. I don't really have an issue with him adding these rounds, especially since he's doing it in condensed boxes so it doesn't take up that much space... To say that its too much work to add the players is fine, but if he's willing to do it and spend the time I don't think we should belittle his contribution... And the information is certainly encyclopedic... It is certainly not necessary to the page and I think if I were to add the rounds myself it might be more productive to do it by team rather than round, cause it would be more useful to track down all the players the Padres drafted or something like that rather than all the players from round 4.. Anyways, the title of the article is 2011 Draft, not 2011 1st round picks... My two cents here. Spanneraol (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not belittling the contribution, it's the method that irks me. According to WP:BRD, if you're bold and your edit is reverted, you should discuss fully before trying to reinsert material. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this could go either way; reams of data on non-notable people runs up against WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but the "too much data" argument can be countered by WP:NOTPAPER. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that and am willing to have a full discussion on it, but as I hope you all can see, Carthage44 is unwilling to do so and insists on being quite immature. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY wins in this case. Lists like this should only include blue links in my opinion. If we want an exception for first-round picks that never became blue links, so be it, but 43rd round picks that never become blue links (most or all of them I assume?) is excessive. Wknight94 ^talk 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To demonstrate, here is the 43rd round of the 2001 draft. We could expect that any prospect from that draft who will ever be notable has already become notable by now, and there's only 5. They should be represented at 2001 Major League Baseball Draft. I thought five sounded abnormally high, so here is the 42nd round of the 2001 draft, and you will see that exactly zero of them have MLB experience. The 41st round of the 2001 draft produced two MLB players, who combined for a grand total of 5 MLB appearances. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list, "Notable players in the 2011 Major League Baseball draft", seems far more reasonable to me. And useful. Wknight94 ^talk 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make note that my last edit reverting Carthage's additions, while technically my fourth such edit in the last 24 hours, is exempt from 3RR because Carthage is banned - WP:NOT3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, if he's blocked and not banned, does that mean I was wrong to revert it? I waited a while to see if anyone else would before doing it myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your last revert is not exempt due to Carthage's blocked status, but I'd say it's unlikely that any action would be taken at this point. --Onorem♠Dil 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Put me down as "I don't care" about this. I'm WP:FOC. Wknight94 ^talk 15:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems Carthage44 still wants to edit without considering ongoing discussion. I'm not sure there's consensus yet, but this talk page sure seems to be more against listing all 50 rounds than it is for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]