Baseball player Shohei Ohtani has agreed to the terms of a contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers. That agreement has not been published by the Dodgers themselves yet, nor have they announced that a contract has been signed. However, the agreement has been announced by Ohtani themselves, his agency, and posted by the official MLB Twitter. There's significant secondary coverage of the announcement in The Athletic and several other high-quality outlets, like CBS Sports. Those two sources confirm that Ohtani himself announced the arrangement.

Should the information [that Ohtani says he has agreed to a contract but no official announcement has been made] be included in this article prior to an official announcement by the Dodgers? Applicable guidelines here include WP:RSBREAKING, in addition to the essay WP:SPORTSTRANS. BLP, specifically WP:BLPGOSSIP or WP:GRAPEVINE, do not appear to factor in as Ohtani has spoken on this himself. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: bracketed text added to ensure the RfC question is clear. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support adding the following sentence, which identifies the source of the information in the text and does not state that a contract has been signed: "On 9 December 2023, Ohtani announced on Instagram that he had agreed to terms on a contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers. There has been no official confirmation from the Dodgers.^[1]" Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't understand the huge amount of hesitation to even mention that he made an agreement to sign with the Dodgers. Ohtani said it himself, his agency said so, and by now - a couple days after the initial announcements - several newspapers have made their own verifications and reported on it. We have more than enough good independent sources to just mention that he made an agreement to sign with the Dodgers.

Some in the above conversations have stated that it may take some time for an official contract to be signed, and that is all the more reason to at least mention the agreement. Otherwise this page will be inaccurate for some time in not mentioning this, and readers will be confused why his page is not at least making reference to one of the biggest news stories in sports right now. And others mentioning the off-chance the deal falls through, that is a separate unlikely event that should not get in the way of mentioning the fact that this subject agreed to sign with the Dodgers.

I know that this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper but there's been more than enough time and information to make a mention of the Dodgers. Again, this is information that he has himself stated, his agency stated, and many high-quality sources have had more than enough time to have independently verified and reported on. 8984m (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There is no reason to add such a remark that will quickly become out dated. This comes up with every big signing, a bunch of people want to jump the gun on adding info when waiting a few days to get everything confirmed and official has been the standard practice here for years. Also, supporting your own suggestion is a bit weird. Spanneraol (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Spanneraol. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 23:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support announced by the MLB, see here. Also on the Dodgers website and announced by Ohtani, can't get much more official than that. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The linked source says "agreed to terms" ≠ "signed".—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  also see this. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kline: See WP:SPORTSTRANS. Most baseball editors will not update an article/will revert new edits until there is an official announcement. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, well I really can't get any better that what I have, MLB says it's a done signing, the Dodgers have the signing on their website, Ohtani has announced that the is signing with the Dodgers. I really don't understand what the others want. Also, I don't see the need for full protection as we can just put it on EC + PC protection. Full seems pretty unnecessary. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 01:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Kline, as editors who are extended confirmed were changing the lead and infobox to say he was on the Dodgers, not just adding a sentence to prose about an agreement being struck, full protection was my last resort. I do plan to drop protection the second it is clear that the deal is signed sealed and delivered. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I suggested PCR, so that it could be properly reviewed by someone. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 03:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with pending changes is the sheer number of similar edits that will be reverted in such a short time, overburdening editors and leading to reprotection. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, per WP:PCPP: Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate... —Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kline: I don't believe the Dodgers have announced anything yet, which is why we're having this RfC in the first place. I'd argue that an agreement to terms is worthy of mentioning while we wait for an official announcement to avoid readers being confused why we don't have the information a lot of other places have. Others disagree. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The dodgers have in fact announced it. 2603:8001:2E07:2D00:E046:93C2:9ECF:D97A (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They have in fact not. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles on MLB.com are not announcements by the team but articles written by independent writers.. He is not listed on the teams 40 man roster and the team has made no official announcement. Spanneraol (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose. Here's Ken Rosenthal on Twitter talking about why the deal is not official yet (there hasn't been a physical). [1] Esolo5002 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Esolo5002: Please re-read the RfC intro, which notes that the deal is not official. I've added some text in brackets to make the proposal more clear. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the intro. My stance is the same. If he eventually signs this new information will be deleted, if he doesn't sign then lots more information will be added. No need for a change at this present moment. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose I definitely don't like the admin-only protection. That being said the Dodgers should probably announce it first. It's just a bit odd that an MLB writer announced it, Shohei announced it, yet there's no legitimate signing from the Dodgers about it. Conyo14 (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shohei announcing that he has agreed to terms is noteworthy, even on the small chance that the deal would fall through due to failing medicals or whatever reason. If written as "On 9 December 2023, Ohtani announced that he had agreed to terms with the Los Angeles Dodgers", it would not become outdated.

It's important to not jump the gun with updates, but not including this timely update objectively feels like a mistake. TheJohnPro (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It can't hurt to mention his current status, in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  His current status is in the lead: he's a free agent. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I give up. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I read GoodDay's use of "status" in the unofficial sense, as in "has agreed to terms". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Perhaps we should wait until the contract deal with the Dodgers for Shohei Ohtani is official from MLB, Dodgers itself, and other multiple sources. The source from MLB here points out that he signs with the Dodgers for a 10-year $700 million contract but not enough information to be official yet. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 00:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The lack of confirmation from the Dodgers makes me think it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede yet, but it should be mentioned in the 2023 section after where it says that he became a free agent. Otherwise it's simply out of date. I don't like the full protection here and what is essentially the hijacking of the page by one admin, even if the rules are decently clear on how to deal with "unconfirmed" free agent signings like this. LVMH11 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  LVMH11, what you call a "hijacking" was me doing my job to prevent the continuous addition of unsourced content. WP:Focus on content not on contributors. I am not going to WP:BLUDGEON here but that comment requires a response. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only unsourced content was that he was on the Dodger's roster by now (which is not the case). We have plenty of RS saying he is planning on signing with the Dodgers, based on his own words. So I don't believe that you are only preventing the addition of unsourced content. Keeping the term "free agent" in the lede is what we should do per the former, but completely blocking all mention of his intentions despite the latter is detrimental to the page IMO. WP:SPORTSTRANS doesn't say that you aren't allowed to include well-sourced, non-anonymous reports (in this case from the player himself) about the potential of there being a signing. Like c'mon, this page is at the top of Google search results for Ohtani, it's not a good look for there to be zero mention of what is being described in every single other search result from RS (including MLB itself). I also find that WP:NOTNEWS is one of the more hypocritical rules on the site given the "In the news" section of the main page. The site should include relevant information to the subject of all pages that are well-sourced. This is relevant and well-sourced (outside of the deal being officially completed). The page would probably be improved when making this change, so WP:FATRAT applies as well.

  I get that you can have things happen like with Correa last year, but the information about him initially going to the Mets and Giants is on that page currently, which would have also been the case if the article had said so as it happened. I don't see why we can't cover what is actively going on with the subject of a page irrespective of what the final outcome is. Obviously this logic doesn't extend to calling Ohtani a Dodger in the lede, as the signing hasn't cleared yet.

  Furthermore, the only thing that would prevent this signing from going through is the Dodgers trying to free up 40-man space through a trade with the Yankees. It doesn't have anything to do with Ohtani himself, unlike the Correa situtation. We could easily include language in the body of the article saying something along the lines of "On December 9th, 2023, Ohtani announced his intentions to sign with the Los Angeles Dodgers on his Instagram account. The contract would be for 10 years and worth $700 million USD, and is pending the Dodgers freeing up space on their 40-man roster to fit Ohtani." And then have RS cited for this. LVMH11 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While the 40 man roster thing is one issue, he also has not taken a physical and the deferrals need to be worked out. Spanneraol (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support At the very least, modify the free agent portion to recognize the multiple reports from noteworthy secondary sources. Calwatch (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Two words: Carlos Correa Anonymous Contributor 012786 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, on rare occasions signings can fall through. That's why the proposal here is to communicate the bare facts: "that Ohtani says he has agreed to a contract but no official announcement has been made". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I see no issues with updating the body of the article to mention the agreement to sign with the Dodgers. Per WP:SPORTSTRANS, we should not change his current team to be the Dodgers until things are made official, but to keep the article current, the agreement to sign could be added to the 2023 section. Though this entire discussion is going to be moot in several days, unless something drastic happens. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per WP:SPORTSTRANS "If anything is to be presented at all, it should be limited to prose attributed to the source that is reporting the transaction. For example, "On March 5, 2013, ACME News reported that John Doe will sign with XYZ."" I feel like we should at least mention in the body section that Ohtani himself stated that he intends to sign with the Dodgers. (i.e. On December 9, Ohtani announced on social media that he intends to sign with the Los Angeles Dodgers) HappyBoi3892 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll support that, so long as he is still a free agent in the lead until we have affirmation. Conyo14 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Conyo14: Would you be open to striking your oppose above and adding that? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's weak for a reason. It's a very conditional statement here and the where is also important. Conyo14 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support given that the player has confirmed using his social media account. (And also there's intense interest around Ohtani, his page is especially highly-trafficked right now, and I think it makes sense to briefly acknowledge the situation that's being widely discussed in reliable secondary sources.) SS451 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I've left messages at WP:SPORTS & WP:BASEBALL, for more input here. GoodDay (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]