Category talk:Peers

Untitled

This category is theoretically going to be enormous. Isn't there any way we can divide it up? john k 20:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a large category. I thought of dividing it up by rank, but certain problems presented themselves:

Peers of higher ranks also belong to the lower ranks, so would, technically, belong to multiple categories.
Categories would in several instances be confusing. For instance, it might be odd to see Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh under "Marquesses."
"Peer" is used almost always (at least in Wikipedia) in the context of the British Peerage. "Dukes," "Viscounts" and "Barons" are used in the context of several other nations as well. We would have uninformed individuals adding things like Pierre de Coubertin to the baronial category.

Dividing by Peerage is also possible, but IMHO undesirable: several individuals would belong in different Peerages, and would be duplicated. Perhaps, after we fill the category, we could divide it up by alphabet, but that does not necessarily look elegant on the article pages. I suggest that we leave the category as is, with the possible rule that life peers belong to a separate category. -- Emsworth 21:29, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely separate out life peers, I think, as that's easy enough. As to duplicating peers in different peerages, I'm not sure that's a problem...I'd note that for people like Castlereagh, there's still a problem with alphabetization - for instance Prince Louis of Battenberg gets alphabetized under "M" for Milford Haven, which is awkward... john k 21:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Collation is by article title, not by the name of the individual. Hence, Prince Louis of Battenberg would be collated as "Louis of Battenberg, Prince," Bertrand Russell as "Russell, Bertrand," and John of Gaunt as "John of Gaunt." In any event, I don't see a problem with having a very large category. -- Emsworth 22:07, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I suggest that we keep the baronets out and look towards setting up a Baronets category. I've already been contemplating Baronetage of England, Baronetage of Ireland, etc articles. Mackensen 20:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Baronetage of Nova Scotia article would be awesome. But, yeah, Baronets are not peers, and should not be categorized as such. john k 22:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On my list of things to do. Believe or not, I've almost finished compiling a list of English baronets, extant and otherwise, over at List of Baronetcies. Mackensen 22:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorting

If these articles are added to the appropriate subcategory of Births by year or Category:Deaths by year, should they be sorted the same way as in this category? -- User:Docu

Yes. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury should be alphabetized under Salisbury, not Gascoyne-Cecil or Cecil. john k 18:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I will use them then. Thanks. -- User:Docu

BTW I added that to Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting under "British peers". The wording might need improving though. -- User:Docu

Wrong. That isn't an issue that can be decided by Category talk:Peers. Gene Nygaard 21:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life Peers

What is wrong with Life Peers or Law Lords? Why are they not on the list (apart from being modern)? --Henrygb 21:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We have a Category:Life peers and I recall seeing a category of law lords, but perhaps I was mistaken. ugen 64 06:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, but Category:Life peers seems on its page to be a subcategory of this, but does not appear as a subcategory here. --Henrygb 10:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finished

Finished recategorization! :) – ugen64 22:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hurray! john k 22:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huzzah! Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peers as Legislators

_ _ Just for clarity: Peers is a subcat of Category:Legislators in the United Kingdom, so all peers are legislators (presumably in Lords). That implies that when Lords was contracted within the last decade, those kicked out were deprived of their peership as well, even tho they retained various titles.
_ _ If my conclusion is mistaken, then either Category:Legislators in the United Kingdom tag should be removed, or the title of one (or both) of these Cats is seriously flawed.
--Jerzy•t 17:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're still peers, just not members of the House of Lords. I think the former category is presently misplaced, especially as the vast majority of peers were not politically active even when they were members of the Lords. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]