Talk:Henry Morgan

Sub sections

I created the privateer sub section as it looked neater and coincides with other wiki articles in the same format regarding a certain era or subject. As is the case here and here. Shire Lord (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think it does look "neater", so as it's an entirely subjective point it shouldn't carry much weight. Yes, there may be some other articles that sub-divide, but there are many, many others which don't. It doesn't help the understanding of the subject for readers as the whole article is set to run chronologically in logical sections, each of whichever is of equal weight and importance, rather than trying to place stress on a particular period by having it at a different sub- or sub- sub-level. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I'll leave this for now but the subject is better this way as can be demonstrated here - WP:MOS. Shire Lord (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to link to that particular section of the guidelines? I only ask because that section doesn't "demonstrate" anything about when to use sections/sub-sections, only how, and I think we pass muster on that score, unless I've missed something. - The Bounder (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That's the point, it is a perfectly valid case to use the subsections/subdivides as part of wiki's standardization as it improves accessibility. Besides if the sources section is subdivided then Morgan's privateer career should be too? Yes we will pass muster on it. All the best. Shire Lord (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all know that sub dividing can be done, but that doesn't not mean it should be done. If you could explain why part of Morgan's career should be sub divided simply because the sources section is, I'd be very grateful, because I'm struggling to see the logic in comparing the two. I'm also slightly stuggling to see what accessibility has to do with things: if we had socking great walls of text, then I would agree, but we have no walls of text here, as everything's is broken into logical, useable and readable sections. - The Bounder (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't see why you are so against it since we have the sources section in that way (perfectly valid reason to compare). The reason I think it should be subsectioned is that Morgan was known as a privateer and will list his campaigns in that way better. Shire Lord (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I follow the logic of 'because one section is sub-divided, others should be', but I obviously must have missed something. Morgan was known as more than just a privateer (as I hope the article shows), and while that may be one way to approach the article, I have written it chronologically, which negates the need for further division, in my opinion. I'm happy to step away now and see if there are any third parties that want to chip in (or who want to comment at the FAC). – The Bounder (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• The only thing I will add is that this was the version before I began work on it, and none of the career section was sub-divided. The only parts that were subdivided, were the unreferenced mess that was the "in popular culture" section, and the "Retirement and legacy" section, which didn't really need to be broken down as it stood. - The Bounder (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed lets see how the third party views this? Shire Lord (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Some people like subsections because they break the text up a little bit and ostensibly make the article more readable. Other people dislike them because they clutter the text up and ostensibly make it less readable. It's essentially a matter of personal preference, and I wouldn't seek to enforce my personal preference over anyone else's on an article I didn't write. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Morgan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227081942/http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/captainhenrymorgan to http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/captainhenrymorgan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)