This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Don't see the point. Obviously he wasn't an admiral all his career, and many of his exploits were performed before he attained that rank. The more general 'Naval officer' seems appropriate to me.
Cenedi21:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Isn't it normal in Bio articles to give a dead subject his more senior title? E.g. No King or Queen were Kings and Queens for all their careers either, yet are always referred to as such. This article should at least be entitled
Sir Charles Napier, so by dissociating him from
Charles James Napier, (also a Knight) his cousin and General officer in the army. Although I have done it myself in earlier articles, it seems that the use of information in parentheses in the title, should be reserved for the main article or info on a disambig page.
Brendandh00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)reply
It is unusual for the name of an article to include an honorific or title, such as "Sir", just as it would be unusual for the name of an article to include "King" or "Queen" - compare
Henry VIII of England and
Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Disambiguation of the various
Charles Napiers by parenthesis is quite usual, in my experience, although I am agnostic about "(naval officer)" or "(admiral)".
I don't feel strongly about any of this: I'm just trying to think in terms of someone looking for further information who could have encountered Napier in any one of several contexts, including Napoleonic Wars, War of 1812, Syrian War etc - in none of which he was an Admiral, but the context would be naval. He was, in fact, "Charles John Napier", but the middle name is very seldom cited.
Cenedi17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Last edited at 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 11:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Charles Napier (Royal Navy officer). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.