Template talk:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners


 * Moved from main page:

Quote from Daniel Case in WP:AN:

--George Ho (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The individual hooks are compelling while the combo hook is a lifeless stream of blue lacking any impetus to click the bolded links. (NB: I'm essentially retired from DYK and only came here because of a message on my talk page. If you need to reach me, reach me there.) - Dravecky (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment -  I was made aware of this by a note left on my talk page by George Ho. And after briefly glancing though the discussion, I don't see any problem with having a multi article hook. I previously was extensively involved with DYK both before becoming an admin and after my RfA, and this is precisely why I started to lessen my involvement with DYK a couple of years ago, the amount of drama and personal digs that were starting to come out simply got to a level where I couldn't enjoy DYK anymore. However, from my experience (and this may have been superseded by policy changes since I was last actively involved with DYK) we generally tended to follow whatever format the hook author/nom put forth. If they feel that their hook should have three or four articles in it, as long as it met the length guidelines for multi-article hooks as was relevant (as this original hook does) we just followed their recommendations and went with it. I personally cannot understand all the drama and discussion taking place over what to me appears such a simple matter (again, why I really stopped working with DYK) if the nom requests a multi-article hook then we work with it, we have too many other noms to review and no shortage of good hooks to look at to waste such time and energy on this. And, at this point my only preference on how we should run this set of hooks would be to go with the combo hook simply out of respect for the nominators wishes, otherwise it doesn't really matter to me. Best, Mifter (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have done four separate hooks out of hopes that they may surpass this multi-article hook and that there would be separate discussions, and I have to shut down my nominations and then merge them into this lengthy discussion to respect Tony's wishes? No way. What about respecting my wishes? On the other hand, if you said, "doesn't matter", what does it mean? Why is this a "simple matter"? --George Ho (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason in the past that we have tended to respect the nominators wishes because they were the ones who wrote/expanded the articles and then nominated them, I would be advocating for your wishes in the same way if you were the nominator. Also, when I said it doesn't matter to me (very different than saying it simply doesn't matter) I meant that what you do in the end is not a matter of extreme concern to me, whatever happens, the articles will run at DYK and that will be the end of it; be it as one hook or separate hooks.  And, on that note I see it as a simple matter because their are two choice, run them separate, or run the together.  And, the decision is between those two, its not overly complex, it may not be an easy decision or matter to settle per se, but it is a simple one.  Hope this helps clarify, Mifter Public (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm simply refusing to merge all the hooks to this discussion just because Tony feels "disrespected" or something else. I thought it is awkward to split up multi-article hook into separate hooks in one discussion instead of simply creating separate noms and notifying, yet someone else thought that my actions are awkward, otherwise. However, if I need to be convinced to merge them all, then it cannot be just respecting Tony's wishes or something else related. From now on, if anybody wants to review my proposed hooks, try going to either one of mine, not here. This discussion is about the multi-article hook itself. Nobody has to follow non-administrator's advice, do we? I mean, not having to discuss a different hook in this discussion, right? --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * George, the reason you should be merging the hooks is because you divided them based on a false premise: that the original hook was over the maximum length allowed. It wasn't; it met the DYK length consensus (i.e., C3) with plenty of room to spare. DYK gives considerable deference to article authors who nominate, as Mifter notes, because they did the work getting the articles up to DYK standards. From the start, you have given no deference at all that I can see. Instead of pointing out the issue and making a suggestion that he could split or do something else to get within the limit you believed was in force, you pre-emptively decided what ought to be done: single entries for each. Even if you had been correct about the length, Tony might have preferred another solution—a pair of hooks, perhaps—that fit the articles. It isn't about Tony's feelings, it's about what's right to do for the DYK process. Submitting duplicate nominations is an extraordinary step in DYK; I can't imagine doing so without first going to WT:DYK and getting feedback as to whether it was appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)