User talk:Wasted Time R/Sandbox/mcc-new-main

Is it okay if I do a few edits?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to move the "Segments" up a smidgeon?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No ... I'm not too worried about the formatting, I'm sure we can get it somewhere where it is visible. It's the content cut-down that's the biggest challenge. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think wikilinks in headings are frowned upon. See WP:MOSLINKS: "Do not link items in the title or headers." Also, the danger of abbreviating the link to the subarticle to show as something like "Prisoner of War" is that readers will think it's a link to the generic Prisoner of War article, not a subarticle about McCain. I think WP:SUMMARY prefers the explicit "main" template use. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to completely remove all of the links to sections of the main article, because I tend to think a link to the whole main article should be sufficient. On the other hand, I know that you would like to remind readers about all of your good work in the main article. It just looks kind of cluttered to link to all of those sections of the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How about if we start subsections of this article by including a wikilink in the text, to the corresponding subsection of the main article? I'll try that. I'll then get moving to the substantive matters about what to leave in and leave out.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with just having one "main" link at the top of the whole "Early life and military career" part is that if readers see the lead, get interested in the POW aspect, then click on "Prisoner of War" in the Table of Contents, they go directly to that section and never see the "main" link. That's why I repeated the "main" link on a section by section basis. Wikilinks in the text is a possibility, but it forces you to use possibly awkward wording up front, and for things like "Return to United States" or "Liaison to Senate" may be misinterpreted as a generic article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Something's gone wrong here ... the "Early life and military career" section in the main article does not need its own "lead section" ... the lead of the whole article sets out the general course of his life, and the sections that are about to follow will give more detailed summaries of these events, with the subarticles to give the full details. Introducing yet another "lead" in here just leads to endless recapping of the same material ... there's nothing wrong with a "==" section immediately followed by a "===" section with no text in between. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I wrote the sub-lede when there were repeated links to the main article, which frankly did not look good. I'll remove the sub-lede per your request. I just printed out the whole section, and have been making edits which I'll soon toss into your sandbox. (Just like two kids in nursery school!)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your content edits, I'd leave in the specific reference to Operation Rolling Thunder — it's important to note which campaign the pilots were criticizing, and Rolling Thunder has a well-deserved rep as the least effective strategic bombing campaign of all time. I'd also leave in the specific dates of his divorce and remarriage — that's basic bio info that even a shortened main article should have. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, having blown a big chunk of my weekend on this, I guess I have to be going for awhile. I hope that the edits I made seem reasonable. If not, I'm very flexible.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it (re weekend). I'll give it a look later this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest we put the new shortened "Early life and military service" part into the actual article now. Any further tweaks can be made in the actual article. A further delay will risk other editors making changes that get lost when this is moved in. We can also see if there are any immediate howls of outrage. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you want to proceed? I can do a start on reduction of the political career sections tomorrow morning, but then I'm away most of the day. Or if you want to start the next reduction, that's ok with me, I can review it tomorrow evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind continuing in the same way, I'd appreciate it. I don't mind if you're away most of Sunday, because I have to catch up on some actual work in the office, rather than Wikipedia stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I resynched this sandbox to the current actual article. But then I did my cut-down work on the 1982-1999 section in a different sandbox, User:Wasted Time R/Sandbox/mcc-house. The top version there is cut in half, but I have to go now. The K5 and cigarette legislation material could both use a little more tightening. K5 has to be dealt with carefully, however; it's his biggest scandal (even McCain called it his biggest mistake) and the main article can't be seen to be losing its significance. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I have to go now too. Much work to do in the real world. When you get a chance, please let me know which sandbox I should play in.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I did further reduction on the cigarette material in User:Wasted Time R/Sandbox/mcc-house, but I'm stumped on K5 ... I don't know that affair well enough to be able to intelligently and accurately condense it. Anyway, I'm going to move on to following sections, so you can edit in that sandbox, or move it into the full main sandbox and do it there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've condensed the Keating material.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope the Keating condensation was okay. I guess I'll just leave things in your capable hands until things are all back into one sandbox (all of the different sandboxes have me a bit confused).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks ok. If the 1982-1999 section is ready to go in the actual article, we should do so. It can be inserted directly from the User:Wasted Time R/Sandbox/mcc-house sandbox, with follow-up edits to fix any ref problems. The full main article sandbox is already of out date again with respect to the Panama edits, so I wouldn't bother with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your "first sentence has a wlink to the subarticle section full treatment" approach is working, especially in the 1982-1999 section. They tend to jump the chronology a bit: "McCain's new career as a Congressman was about to begin" is jarring and redundant based on the section heading. They can be argued as inaccurate: "McCain's Senate career began in 1986" is technically untrue, since he wasn't sworn in until 1987. They can be confusing as to what is being linked to: "McCain became enmeshed in the Keating Five scandal" looks like a link to the Keating Five article. And they can be misleading: "McCain has a reputation as a maverick, dating back at least to 1991" is also arguable, as there were several "maverick" things he did in the House against Reagan, which are in the subarticle but I cut for space (I hate this!) here. I appreciate the effort to give the subarticles added visibility, but at this point I'm resigned to the notion that many readers won't find them. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done reduction work on the 2000 election section in the sandbox User:Wasted Time R/Sandbox/mcc-2000. It hasn't shrunk as much as some of the others; this has been the hardest section to reduce since the POW section, as both were crucibles. What happened in 2000 is arguably the key to everything that's happened since. It could be shrunk much further by cutting out the New Hampshire and South Carolina detail, but the former really illustrates the nature of McCain's campaigns, while the doing the latter would be a real "show, don't tell" violation. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, an editor has requested that we edit in smaller increments.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it might be best if you'd do reduction work on the 2000 election section directly in the main article, so the changes will be more incremental. Regarding the "first sentence has a wlink to the subarticle section full treatment", I think some of those can be easily fixed. For exampl, "McCain has a reputation as a maverick, dating back at least to 1991" can easily be changed to "McCain has long had a reputation as a maverick."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed up the lead sentences of the subsections.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll move the revised 2000 election section into the main article (maybe with a few tweaks). But from here on out, maybe the edits should not be done in the sandbox, per Evil Spartan.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The top nav template idea has gone disastrously wrong, with User:Justmeherenow adding unrelated subarticles such as Faith of My Fathers, and copying the idea for the Hillary, Obama, and Giuliani articles, falsely billing them as "Life of ..." when in those cases, the subarticles do not cover the full life. I'll have to bring them to templates for deletion or something (a previous set of redundant side templates were deleted a couple of months ago). I tried to ward off Justmeherenow at the start, but he wouldn't listen. Sigh. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Before taking the templates for deletion, you might try a compromise. For example, he'll get rid of Faith of My Fathers if you get rid of Cultural and Political Image. If that doesn't work, or is not acceptable to you, then deletion of the templates may render the wikilinking to subsections more useful.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I want the templates for the McCain case, to chain the articles. Nobody seems to understand that these subarticles are different from all the other political figures; they chain together in a continuous biographical sequence. Oh well, will worry about it tomorrow. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Arrrgghhh. I didn't realize the tumult that McCain winning the nomination was going to cause. And Sandy completely misinterpreted everything I was trying to do here. Anyway, I'll try to work more on the boildown, but if you want to go ahead in the meantime, do so. I also need to rethink a way of explaining the "Cultural and political image" section ... but I can do a very short boildown of that. And the last part of the "Political positions" section is still a horrid mess. More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The tumult will only get greater. That's why I think it's important to hurry up and get this article in better shape so that responsible editors will start defending it. I'll proceed with boiling down directly in the article. The more matter-of-fact this article is, the less trouble it will encounter. That means removing subjective flourishes like "with no love lost between them." It doesn't matter if that phrase is used by a reliable source; it will strike many people as opinionated. IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with the main article being matter-of-fact, that's the prudent course to take. But I'll argue strongly for keeping aspects like the above in the subarticles, where we have greater depth to explore matters. I want readers who are interested in a more comprehensive treatment of the subject to get a real notion of what McCain thought about Bush following the 2000 election. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)