Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Baseball Rule"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Yoninah (restoring tick) |
imported>Yoninah (to Prep 3) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <noinclude>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations from March 2019]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |
| − | + | :''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|the article's talk page]] or [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know]]), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. '''No further edits should be made to this page'''.'' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | | | + | The result was: '''promoted''' by [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 11:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)<br /> |
{{DYK conditions}} | {{DYK conditions}} | ||
====Baseball Rule==== | ====Baseball Rule==== | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Baseball Rule|Baseball Rule}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Baseball Rule|Baseball Rule}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* ... that the '''[[Baseball Rule]]''' in [[United States tort law|American tort law]] holds that as long as a baseball team has protected seats available, fans injured by [[foul ball]]s usually cannot hold the team [[legal liability|liable]]? <small>Source: "[https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3775&context=wmlr This Article examines the so-called 'Baseball Rule,' the legal doctrine generally immunizing professional baseball teams from liability when spectators are hit by errant balls or bats leaving the field of play.]" 60 [[William & Mary Law Review]] 59 (2018)</small> | * ... that the '''[[Baseball Rule]]''' in [[United States tort law|American tort law]] holds that as long as a baseball team has protected seats available, fans injured by [[foul ball]]s usually cannot hold the team [[legal liability|liable]]? <small>Source: "[https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3775&context=wmlr This Article examines the so-called 'Baseball Rule,' the legal doctrine generally immunizing professional baseball teams from liability when spectators are hit by errant balls or bats leaving the field of play.]" 60 [[William & Mary Law Review]] 59 (2018)</small> | ||
** '''ALT1''':... that '''[[Baseball Rule|baseball spectators are more likely to be hit by a foul ball than players are to be hit by a pitch]]'''? <small>Source: "[http://www.sfweekly.com/sponsored/if-youre-in-the-stands-keep-your-eye-on-the-ball/ Bloomberg reported in 2014 that roughly 1,750 spectators a year are injured by batted balls at all of the major league ballparks throughout the United States. The study showed spectators were much more likely to be hit with an errant ball than a player was to be hit with a pitch.]" ''[[SF Weekly]]''; March 14, 2018</small> | ** '''ALT1''':... that '''[[Baseball Rule|baseball spectators are more likely to be hit by a foul ball than players are to be hit by a pitch]]'''? <small>Source: "[http://www.sfweekly.com/sponsored/if-youre-in-the-stands-keep-your-eye-on-the-ball/ Bloomberg reported in 2014 that roughly 1,750 spectators a year are injured by batted balls at all of the major league ballparks throughout the United States. The study showed spectators were much more likely to be hit with an errant ball than a player was to be hit with a pitch.]" ''[[SF Weekly]]''; March 14, 2018</small> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 11: | ||
:* ''Comment'': I am aiming to have this on the Main Page on U.S. Major League Baseball Opening Day this year, '''March 28'''. As I type this I am still developing the article, so it may be possible that material supportive of other hooks will be added | :* ''Comment'': I am aiming to have this on the Main Page on U.S. Major League Baseball Opening Day this year, '''March 28'''. As I type this I am still developing the article, so it may be possible that material supportive of other hooks will be added | ||
<small>Created by [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]). Self-nominated at 04:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC).</small> | <small>Created by [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]). Self-nominated at 04:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC).</small> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] This impressive article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I don't believe there are any copyright issues (Earwig is down). A QPQ has been done. Creator requests this for March 28th. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC) | :* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] This impressive article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I don't believe there are any copyright issues (Earwig is down). A QPQ has been done. Creator requests this for March 28th. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC) | ||
| Line 26: | Line 18: | ||
::::*'''ALT2''':... that in 2013, the [[Idaho Supreme Court]] became the first U.S. state supreme court to reject the '''[[Baseball Rule]]'''? <small>Source: "[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8708555989011778825 We Decline to Adopt the Baseball Rule]", Idaho Supreme Court, ''Rountree v. Boise Baseball Club'', 2013</small> | ::::*'''ALT2''':... that in 2013, the [[Idaho Supreme Court]] became the first U.S. state supreme court to reject the '''[[Baseball Rule]]'''? <small>Source: "[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8708555989011778825 We Decline to Adopt the Baseball Rule]", Idaho Supreme Court, ''Rountree v. Boise Baseball Club'', 2013</small> | ||
::::*'''ALT3''':<s>... that the '''[[Baseball Rule]]''', protecting teams from [[legal liability|liability]] over foul ball injuries to fans, dates from a 1913 [[Missouri Court of Appeals|Missouri appeals court]] decision?</s> <small> Source: [https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2411&context=tlr A Foul Ball in the Courtroom: The Baseball Spectator Injury in the Courtroom as a Case of First Impression], University of Tulsa Law Review, Spring 2003, pp. 496–7: "The decision in ''Crane'' announced the existence of a limited but unwaiveable duty, and at the same time offered ballpark owners clear directions as to how to satisfy their obligations."</small> [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC) | ::::*'''ALT3''':<s>... that the '''[[Baseball Rule]]''', protecting teams from [[legal liability|liability]] over foul ball injuries to fans, dates from a 1913 [[Missouri Court of Appeals|Missouri appeals court]] decision?</s> <small> Source: [https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2411&context=tlr A Foul Ball in the Courtroom: The Baseball Spectator Injury in the Courtroom as a Case of First Impression], University of Tulsa Law Review, Spring 2003, pp. 496–7: "The decision in ''Crane'' announced the existence of a limited but unwaiveable duty, and at the same time offered ballpark owners clear directions as to how to satisfy their obligations."</small> [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC) | ||
| − | :::::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]]{{ping|Daniel Case}} Thank you. But do you have a source for it being the first US state supreme court to do so? I'd rather go ahead with ALT0, which explains the law a bit, although I would change "usually" to "generally". Restoring tick for ALT0 per Cwmhiraeth's review. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 11:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC) | + | :::::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]]{{ping|Daniel Case}} Thank you. But do you have a source for it being the first US state supreme court to do so? I'd rather go ahead with ALT0, which explains the law a bit, although I would change "usually" to "generally". Restoring tick for ALT0 per Cwmhiraeth's review. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 11:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)</div></noinclude><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 11:25, 26 March 2019
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Baseball Rule
- ... that the Baseball Rule in American tort law holds that as long as a baseball team has protected seats available, fans injured by foul balls usually cannot hold the team liable? Source: "This Article examines the so-called 'Baseball Rule,' the legal doctrine generally immunizing professional baseball teams from liability when spectators are hit by errant balls or bats leaving the field of play." 60 William & Mary Law Review 59 (2018)
- ALT1:... that baseball spectators are more likely to be hit by a foul ball than players are to be hit by a pitch? Source: "Bloomberg reported in 2014 that roughly 1,750 spectators a year are injured by batted balls at all of the major league ballparks throughout the United States. The study showed spectators were much more likely to be hit with an errant ball than a player was to be hit with a pitch." SF Weekly; March 14, 2018
- Reviewed: Eleanor Barrow Chase
- Comment: I am aiming to have this on the Main Page on U.S. Major League Baseball Opening Day this year, March 28. As I type this I am still developing the article, so it may be possible that material supportive of other hooks will be added
Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 04:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
This impressive article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I don't believe there are any copyright issues (Earwig is down). A QPQ has been done. Creator requests this for March 28th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this. ALT1, while attention-grabbing, might be cited as an "Easter egg" hook. What about tweaking it, like:- ALT1a: ... that while baseball teams are legally required to provide protective seating, fans are more likely to be hit by a foul ball than players are to be hit by a pitch? Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Replyto Fine; I thought that one was a stretch anyway, although it would have gotten clicks.
Having expanded the article some more, I have some new suggestions:
- ALT2:... that in 2013, the Idaho Supreme Court became the first U.S. state supreme court to reject the Baseball Rule? Source: "We Decline to Adopt the Baseball Rule", Idaho Supreme Court, Rountree v. Boise Baseball Club, 2013
- ALT3:
... that the Baseball Rule, protecting teams from liability over foul ball injuries to fans, dates from a 1913 Missouri appeals court decision?Source: A Foul Ball in the Courtroom: The Baseball Spectator Injury in the Courtroom as a Case of First Impression, University of Tulsa Law Review, Spring 2003, pp. 496–7: "The decision in Crane announced the existence of a limited but unwaiveable duty, and at the same time offered ballpark owners clear directions as to how to satisfy their obligations." Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping Thank you. But do you have a source for it being the first US state supreme court to do so? I'd rather go ahead with ALT0, which explains the law a bit, although I would change "usually" to "generally". Restoring tick for ALT0 per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Replyto Fine; I thought that one was a stretch anyway, although it would have gotten clicks.