Category talk:Life peers

Untitled
Many of the articles listed here do not use the life peerage title. This is deliberate, because many life peers are notable mainly for events before they become peers, and much less notable after their peerages, so their notable and well known names are used. --Henrygb 10:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Female life peers subcat
Is the new subcategory really the most appropriate way to divide the category? I am not convinced - and there should at least be a male counterpart anyway. Party affiliation, year of appointment or even ethnic/national background are more useful options. These are not mutually exclusive, but I think they would make the female category redundant. Although to be honest, I'd be happy if this wasn't broken up into subcats at all. Mtiedemann 09:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It seems ridiculous to have a separate category for female life peers and no counterpart for males. Isn't this supposed to be the 21st century with no discrimination on grounds of gender?  J Rawle  (Talk) 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are far more male life peers than female, hence it makes sense to make the male section the default. As to the value of having a subcat, it is a fact that people are going to be interested in specifically female life peers, so it does make sense to have a subcat so they can be grouped together. We already have many cats specifically for women, ethnic minorities etc. Why should this be any different? The criterion should surely be whether or not they are valuable to the user, and in this case I think they are. -- Necrothesp 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality states that categories by gender should be avoided generally, with exceptions where notable. I guess this is where we would have a difference of opinion, but I still hold that this ghettoises female life peers and is a less interesting and valid subcat. The page also suggests that articles do not necessarily always have to be removed from parent categories where that can reduce their accesibility and status - I hold that to be the case in this instance, with female life peers remaining in the main cat; the fact that this may be contraversial is a reason I don't like this way of breaking up the category.


 * Perhaps we should put this through the CfD process in a friendly way to guage opinion in a wider context. Mtiedemann 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) - Oh I see the CfD discussion has started, I've made my contributions. Mtiedemann 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Subcategory:Labour Party life peers
A discussion of this subcategory may be found here.  J Rawle  (Talk) 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)