The following discussion 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• ... that Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, George F. Kennan: An American Life and Water by the Spoonful won 2012 Pulitzer Prizes for History, General Non-Fiction, Biography or Autobiography and Drama, respectively?

Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nom at 14:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] Bundling these articles just for one long hook is undesirable. I'm going to create each separate nomination for one article. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• As I said before, this nomination is too much. I have created Template:did you know nominations/Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, Template:did you know nominations/The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, Template:did you know nominations/George F. Kennan: An American Life, and Template:did you know nominations/Water by the Spoonful. --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Please merge those suggestions back here where discussion can occur in one place. I have frequently been encouraged to merge related hooks and these are mergable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why the four articles can't be combined into a single hook, rather than have to have four separate hooks about the 2012 Pulitzer books. The hook meets the DYK length requirements under the rules for multi-article hooks. What rule is being violated? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The hook is over the 200-character limit, and re-editing it takes a lot of work. Even when interesting, the hook also has too many relevant points to summarize. --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, there is some leeway for multihooks in terms of the 200 character limit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Still, are there any ideas to condescent the hook without going over the limit and throwing away one of the key points? I'm still sticking with separate noms. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I am requesting that an admin blank and salt Template:Did you know nominations/Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, Template:Did you know nominations/The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, Template:Did you know nominations/Water by the Spoonful Template:Did you know nominations/George F. Kennan: An American Life and since George Ho (talk · contribs) is attempting to split a discussion across 5 pages and refusing all suggestion to undo his malformed split.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Geez, Tony, why worrying about my splitting up the nomination when this hook needs to be either fixed or will be rejected? --George Ho (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not so sure it needs either.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • See request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#reverse Template:Did you know nominations.2F4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners split.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you need to explain what subjects they won in? What about: ALT1: ... that Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, George F. Kennan: An American Life and Water by the Spoonful won Pulitzer Prizes in 2012? - That falls at 169, and they are all included. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The hook you proposed could have been interesting. Nevertheless, three are non-fiction, and one is fiction. Moreover, leaving the subject out... would make the hook too vague. Also, "Water by the Spoonful" could have been non-fiction rather than fiction. Nevertheless, what do other people here say about this? --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I personally don't see an issue with fiction/non-fiction, or vagueness, but that's just me. I also see the C3 rule that was posted on AN, which makes the original usable. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
      • ALT2: "... that four winners of the 2012 Pulitzer Prize are Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention for History, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern for General Non-Fiction, George F. Kennan: An American Life for Biography or Autobiography, and Water by the Spoonful for Drama?" This and the original are still lengthy to me.
        • Keep in mind WP:DYKSG rule C3. This hook does not exceed the length rules and comes in at 162 characters with the proper adjustment for multiple articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
          • How do G3 and G4 from "Other recurring issues" not apply? --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
            • How do you feel they should apply?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
      • ALT3: "... that four winners of the 2012 Pulitzer Prize are Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, George F. Kennan: An American Life, and Water by the Spoonful?" Leaving subjects out would.... I don't know... but do general readers care for these subject? Am I the only who cares about inclusion of subjects? --George Ho (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• G3 and G4 can apply to this DYK nomination if C3 might fail to succeed for it. C3 has "probably" and "such hooks will be considered on a case-by-case basis". --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Moreover, G3 says that integrating C3 into main rules must be accepted by consensus. Since there is not yet a "consensus" to integrate it, C3 may be used to elaborate the rules. Under G4 and C3 itself, C3 can either succeed if exception applies or fail if there is no length exception for each multi-article nomination. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, we've split multi-hooks before and kept them on the same nominations page. This benefits by keeping all the discussion in the one place. I have no strong preference whether we run one long hook or lots of single ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • George, C3 says that for multiple hook noms the consensus shows calculations done through "a basic calculation by subtracting the number of characters in the bolded character string for each additional new article beyond the first. After having done that, if the hook length is still 200 characters or fewer, it is probably an acceptable length."

... that The Swerve: How the World Became Modern and won 2012 Pulitzer Prizes for History, General Non-Fiction, Biography or Autobiography and Drama, respectively?

Is well under 200 characters, and thus acceptable under C3. However, I find it unnecessary to use the full names. Perhaps something like:

ALT4 ... that Malcolm X, The Swerve, George F. Kennan and Water by the Spoonful won 2012 Pulitzer Prizes for History, General Non-Fiction, Biography or Autobiography and Drama, respectively?

Would be more acceptable (i.e. use the common name of the book and not its full one) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Malcolm X"... well, he's dead, and using that would have been logical with common sense, but there are so many "Malcolm X" entries, such as Denzel Washington film and the previous DYK entry, Malcolm X (1972 film). "The Swerve"... I don't know, but... "George F. Kennan" is dead, and formatting doesn't make a difference because no one might know who Kennan is or whether he is dead. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just for short notice: I'll reluctantly follow the C3, but, shortening the names won't do for me, to be honest. Using the original hook wouldn't be so bad if not for bad parallelism. Here's my treat:
• ALT5: "... that four winners of the 2012 Pulitzer Prize are Malcolm X for History, The Swerve for General Non-Fiction, George F. Kennan for Biography or Autobiography, and Water by the Spoonful for Drama?" This could be all right... maybe.
• ALT6: "... that four winners of the 2012 Pulitzer Prize are Malcolm X, The Swerve, George F. Kennan, and Water by the Spoonful?" I still don't like leaving subjects out, especially at the hook like this. --George Ho (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Personally, I prefer the full book names.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So do I, although... I told you all that a successful review would require a very concise, interesting hook with a lot of successful copyediting. Maybe... I don't know... should I have done a good communication earlier? --George Ho (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I also prefer the full book titles. Tony's original hook worked for me because I got to the words "2012 Pulitzer Prizes" and I didn't even need to read any further, but someone else might be hooked by the various award categories that follow. Incidentally, I've deleted the "s" in "Prizes" for several of the ALTs because when "four winners" come before the prize, "Prize" should be singular, as in the award itself: "four winners of the 2012 Pulitzer Prize". BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• For me, I would have liked it more if not for length, hook structure, and other interesting contents from these articles. To me, each of separate different hooks is more intriguing to hook more audience than mere award stuff, such as Malcolm X's alleged relationship. Personally, Pulitzers and Oscars are not my things anymore a long time ago, but they are good to research. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Another thing: I think readers are more interested on description of subjects than accolades that the subjects received. Description of subjects would hook people more than awards, although awards would be a nice touch. --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewed: 1st of 2 QPQs against Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Tenney, Fred Tenney (outfielder).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• And the other three? Shouldn't you be taking both of the Tenneys plus two others for this four-article hook? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is currently no consensus as to whether one must do multiple reviews to QPQ for a multiple article hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• It seems inappropriate to claim multiple QPQs from a single nomination, and then turn around and use one of these multiples to cover several in another multiple hook. I can see going hook for hook, or article for article, but not article for hook. I don't know of anyone who has tried that route, and I don't recommend it. If you plan to take advantage of the best of both worlds, I'd imagine that a consensus could very quickly be found for ending such a practice. You sure you don't want to supply those other three? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I just reread WP:DYKSG, H4: "An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable." You aren't even offering hook-for-hook. I still may propose that a user has to choose between article-for-article and hook-for-hook going forward, rather than mix and match. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved all posts into Template talk:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners. Will merge all separate hooks into this page, as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Separate hooks for each article (ALT 7)

---

• ... that Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, the award-winning autobiography of Malcolm X, was condemned for X's alleged homosexual relationship with a white man?
• ... that the 2012 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction is The Swerve: How the World Became Modern?

• ALT 1: ... that, according to award-winning The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, Lucretius's "On the Nature of Things" was discovered and preserved by Poggio Bracciolini in the 15th century?

• ... that, before he died in 2005, George F. Kennan wanted the award-winning biography about his life, written by John Lewis Gaddis, with whom Keenan interviewed, to be published posthumously?
• ... that the award-winning play Water by the Spoonful tackles an Iraq War veteran's return to the United States after the war?

---

• To be honest, BlueMoonset's summarized comments about my actions (which are in its talk page) convinced me to change my mind and then merge. No other people have done that effectively for me. I hope the matter is settled already. As for comments in separate pages, you don't mind if they are all gone, do you? I will either nominate them for speedy deletion or withdraw all noms, so all the mess is settled. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't know how to withdraw all separate noms properly, so I typed "No" in the |passed= parameter and consider them rejected, but at least green notice is used to indicate withdrawl. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#reverse Template:Did you know nominations.2F4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners split and ask for help or start a new thread there. Maybe you should redirect those here or something. Not sure what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I meant: Template:did you know nominations/Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention is closed as rejected, like other three. --George Ho (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As the original nominator, I continue to prefer the original hook. ALT 2 and ALT5 are 2nd and 3rd in my mind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• What makes awards more special than separate hooks? Also, what about H4? --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand your question, but I continue to prefer a single hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll rephrase: why is awards hook more interesting than four single hooks? Also, under WP:DYKSG#H4, .... there is no consensus for requiring article-for-article or hook-for-hook, but BlueMoonset encourages you to do either way for the quadruple hook. --George Ho (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• George, have you been treated to day after day of the same type of hook on the main page? First it was basketball teams, then it was horses. I think the single hook works and will spare readers a lot of repetition. Yoninah (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• To Yoninah: Which single hook? Anyway, single quadruple hook is a good bundle generally, yet sometimes it may reduce horribly a number of good single-article hooks. In this case, how generally interesting is the Pulitzer nowadays? --George Ho (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I meant a single hook for all 4 articles. Or a "quadruple hook", if you like. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• What is the relevance of the popularity of the Pulitzer? I doubt any of the hooks will get 1000 views, but hope that somehow they total 5000.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• What's happening here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Needs a new reviewer; it's the only one on my omnibus list last week in WT:DYK that didn't get attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Could someone review this, preferably my original nomination, ALT 2 or ALT 5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• With all due respect to the author & above editors, i don't find the nom interesting at all, in any form. To me, it's just kinda like saying "Did you know that the world is, in fact, round?" I'm only being told about one thing which happened to three people, among so many others. Why not just say "Did you know a whole darn-lotta people whon Pulitzers?" Aside from all rules of DYK nom'ing, shouldn't the question "is this really turning people on to something they may find interesting but wouldn't have found out themselves?" there seems to be soooo many more noms worthy of the above debates. Just saying.Penwatchdog (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You're implying my separate alternative hooks (ALT 7) and quadruple hook, aren't you? --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's "a plague on all your houses". Given the tone and the heavily italicized words, it would seem the author has thrown his slushball into the proceedings, and can return to fixing up his own DYK, which is doubtless considered to be one of the more worthy ones. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Still looking for that reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

no, no, no, no, not any implications whatsoever~ hey i'm new to all of this, folks. i don't consider my opinion to mean anything; just thought i'd give my opinion on something i happened to notice. forget it ever happened; please don't kill my nom! still requesting suggestions there too!Penwatchdog (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• All four articles are new enough (Malcolm X previously a redirect) and long enough. I have also confirmed that the original multi-hook proposed by Tony is supported by in-line citations to reliable sources. I also find the hook to be interesting and tied around a suitable common theme. I do, however, have a concern that I hope can be remedied promptly. The article on "The Swerve" simply strings together a long series of quotes about the book. The only sentence in the entire article that is not a quote is the opening sentence about the book winning the Pulitzer. This seems inconsistent with WP:QUOTEFARM: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style ... Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose." The Kennan and Spoonful articles aren't as bad, but could be improved on this issue as well. If you could remedy these issues, let me know and I'll give it a final pass for approval. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing the concern with "The Swerve." If you have a few minutes to add more prose in proportion to quotes on the Kennan and Spoonful articles, I think it would make them stronger as well, but I don't see that as a reason to hold back this long-delayed hook any longer. Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting side-note: The discussion about this DYK nomination is actually longer than all four articles combined. That may be a DYK record that will never be broken! ;) Cbl62 (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

this is impossible to follow. which hook is approved? PumpkinSky talk 22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Approval is of the original multi hook. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reinstating Cbl62's tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)