Talk:Napoleon

Why does "Little Corporal" redirect to this page when the page does not mention that phrase anywhere? 2601:249:807F:6D10:CD21:BB45:9959:830C (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"Little Corporal" was a nickname for Napoleon given to him. I don't get why It doesn't mention this anywhere but that's why. ZiggyHS (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Current: He abolished the free press, ended directly elected representative government, exiled and jailed critics of his regime, reinstated slavery in French colonies, banned the entry of black people and mulattos into France, reduced the civil rights of women and children in France, reintroduced a hereditary monarchy and nobility,[8][9][10] and violently repressed popular uprisings against his rule.[11]

Change: He abolished the free press, ended directly elected representative government, exiled and jailed critics of his regime, reinstated slavery in French colonies, banned the entry of black people and mulattos into France, reduced the civil rights of women and children in France, reintroduced a hereditary monarchy and nobility,[8][9][10] and violently repressed popular uprisings against his rule.[11] At one point early in his life, he kicked a neighbor's dog. ~2025-32872-88 (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotJamestack (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

correct the birthday, i dont think it needs to say he was born *his name* *his birthday*. ~2026-16946-7 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16946-7, the current format follows WP:BIRTHDATE. —SimmeD (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "born Napoleone di Buonaparte" to "née Napoleone di Buonaparte" UltimateCyborg (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Née is used for surname change via marriage per MOS:BIRTHNAME and MOS:NE (also Née is the feminine and woulnd't be used anyways). _♥^✿ TheMDC4 chat :3 ^✿_♥ 23:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thx UltimateCyborg (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I find it would be beneficial to add a section to this page about the incident in july 1807 where Napoleon Bonaparte was almost killed by a hoard of domesticated rabbits. ZiggyHS (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Napoleon was not almost killed by rabbits. This is a story that comes from the memoirs of Thiébault and is probably apocryphal. History articles on wikipedia are based on reliable academic sources, not websites that repeat funny stories as historical truths. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Most of history is from memoirs, especially of small incidents like this one. Discrediting memoirs would likely discredit half of this article. ~Asta La Pasta (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

No, we base our history articles on scholarly secondary sources. This "incident", even if it ever occurred, is trivia. The article is already over the recommended word limit and probably needs to be trimmed rather than having trivia added to it. Please look at the policy on reliable sources here WP:SOURCE, particularly the following: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science." Also look at policy on including trivial information WP:BALASP, particularly: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. " Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If a guy who abolished the free press, ended directly elected representative government, exiled and jailed critics of his regime, reinstated slavery in French colonies, banned the entry of black people and mulattos into France, reduced the civil rights of women and children in France, reintroduced a hereditary monarchy and nobility, and violently repressed popular uprisings against his rule has a "mixed record" on civil rights, what else should he have done to have an unambiguously bad one? Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Immediately above this it says, "He established a system of public education, abolished the vestiges of feudalism, emancipated Jews and other religious minorities, abolished the Spanish Inquisition, enacted the principle of equality before the law for an emerging middle class, and centralized state power at the expense of religious authorities." He needs to be judged by the standards of the time. Most of the things you consider "unambiguously bad" were the norm for European states at the time. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I propose details like the royal house, parents and issue be restored to the infobox. Yes, I'm aware of the discussion to shorten it which was nearly three years ago, had few participants and really was only started because of the excessive listing of titles. Royal house and relatives are key information that is included in the vast majority of royal infoboxes, and their absence here just makes Napoleon's look incomplete. Clearly, I'm not alone in this view either given someone starts this discussion every few months. I'd hope an actual discussion starts here instead of it fizzling out. ~2026-97116-8 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the info box is already too crowded with stuff of secondary importance and we should not add more. Adding "Royal House" tells us nothing that his name Napoleon Bonaparte doesn't already tell us. The infobox is only supposed to include key information. Who his father and mother were isn't key information in this case because he crowned himself emperor, he didn't inherit the title from his parents. If Napoleon had died in childhood there would be no wikipedia articles on his parents. What "the vast majority" of royal infobox's do is irrelevant: these are mostly about people who get a wikipedia article because of who their parents were; Napoleon is a special case. I would also cut the list of titles he awarded himself. The key ones are First Consul and Emperor. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Another issue is that editors with an interest in royalty want to add everything that is in the template info box for royalty and editors with an interest in military history want to add everything that is in the template for military leaders (ranks, "key battles" etc). The result would be an out-of-control info box which attempts to replicate the entire article with stuff that is better explained in prose in the body of the article. To repeat: Napoleon is a special case; let's cut the info box to the bare minimum and let readers read the details in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

"The result would be an out-of-control info box which attempts to replicate the entire article with stuff that is better explained in prose in the body of the article."

That's why it should be discussed so a compromise can be reached then. I think claiming that people are trying to replicate the entire article into the infobox is a bit of an exaggeration. It was fine for the many years beforehand until the change was implemented without even an RfC. I really don't think adding those details makes it any way 'out of control' compared to other royal infoboxes, like that of Zog I who similarly made himself king.

I would argue that removing details like relatives would only leave readers who just want a quick rundown of information with the wrong impression. The infobox offers no information on Napoleon II, for instance, so a reader would naturally assume Napoleon had no children unless they look further into the article. If the parameters are there, why not fill them? And if the infobox truly ends up 'out of control' then I see no reason why that can't be easily solved with a collapsed section. ~2026-98137-3 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

If the parameters are there, why not fill them? is exactly how it ends up out of control. I think exclusion is appropriate in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Except no one is asking for all parameters to be filled. Keivan.f^Talk 06:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

But surely the argument "if the parameters are there, why not fill them", which is a quote from the previous editor, is inconsistent with any argument for compromise. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

True but we don't shut people down simply because they don't share the same view point as us. They asked for every parameter to be filled, and even I am opposed to that. Keivan.f^Talk 04:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I would think that the names of parents and children are basic biographical information, or at least as important as the names of spouses, especially if notable. We certainly do not omit them from e.g. the biographies of US presidents. On the other hand, I too loath infobox bloat, though I mostly blame "offices" for it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The infobox was trimmed thanks to one of the users about a year or two ago. But as I said then, I think the names of parents and children should have been retained. And this has nothing to do with him being self-proclaimed royalty. Barack Obama's parents did not declare him president of the United States but we have his parents listed in the infobox accordingly. If anyone is interested in adding info on his military campaigns to the infobox (though I don't recommend it), they should do so using a collapsible list format at least. Keivan.f^Talk 16:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)