Template talk:Infobox peer

Parameters
The parameters such as


 * years_active =
 * wars_and_battles =
 * offices      =
 * networth     =
 * known_for    =
 * years_active =
 * residence    =
 * nationality  =
 * locality     =
 * death_cause  =
 * body_discovered =
 * resting_place =

are not neccessary. They are completely irrelevant, in fact. The infobox is supposed to be used in articles about peers, not murder victims, businessmen and warriors. I wanted to base the infobox on Template:Infobox Nobility. Information is presented much more clearly in that infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't see why "Reign", "Babtism", or "Occupation" should be in any way less irrelevant than "Other titles", "Offices", "residence", "death cause", "resting place", or "Wars and battles". Many peers had lesser titles; many were executed; the resting place is easily omitted in the article proper; most peers were also generals and warriors, but before the age of strictly organized armies, so they don't fit in military infoboxes. Besides the old peer infobox is aesthetically much more attractive than the nobility one, which does not even have a parameter for the signature. The template instruction discourages using all possible parameters, which means only use those parameters that make sense for the person in question. Why throw away the whole box? I'd so much like to keep the design of it. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Reign", "Baptism", or "Occupation" are also quite irrelevant. The infobox is supposed to contain parameters that could be used in articles about almost every peer. "Wars and battles" is not one of those. Father, mother, title, predecessor, successor, spouse, issue, date/place of birth/death, place of burial and such things are. As for aesthetics, I consider the current infobox hideous (compared to Template:Infobox royalty and Template:Infobox nobility, for example). But tastes differ. Can we at least move the predecessor and successor field, along with the tenure and title field, right below the image, the way it's done in Template:Infobox royalty and Template:Infobox nobility? Also, we can't explain to everyone why they shouldn't use all the parameters they could use. It would be too arbitrary to choose which parameters should be used and which shouldn't be in various articles; we would ignore many simply because having too many would make the infobox awkward, yet other articles would have those parameters and ignore others, etc. Template:Infobox scientist doesn't contain criminal_charge, criminal_penalty, criminal_status and similar fields just in case there are scientists behind bars. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox nobility has all these parameters:
 * name                =
 * title               =
 * image               =
 * caption             =
 * alt                 =
 * succession          =
 * more                = no
 * reign               =
 * reign-type          =
 * predecessor         =
 * successor           =
 * suc-type            =
 * succession          =
 * spouse              =
 * spouse-type         =
 * issue               =
 * issue-link          =
 * issue-pipe          =
 * full name           =
 * styles              =
 * titles              =
 * noble family        =
 * house-type          =
 * father              =
 * mother              =
 * date of birth       =
 * place of birth      =
 * date of christening =
 * place of christening =
 * date of christening =
 * place of christening =
 * date of death       =
 * place of death      =
 * date of burial      =
 * place of burial     =
 * occupation          =

Template:Infobox person has even more! You always choose parameters, in any infobox. Honestly, I don't know what "spouse-type" or "issue-pipe" and the like means. In this peer infobox here you can put a person's title in the caption, or even the name field. Notable peers are notable for themselves, not because perhaps they had a direct predecessor or successor (many didn't have, because they were "parvenus", were attainted, or died without issue). All were born and died at some point, and it's more important to know when a person lived than anything else. And again, in feudalism, whence the phenomenon of nobility derives, they had to serve in armed conflicts by the definiton of their rank, and many did this in Europe's most famous wars yet without being military personnel in a modern sense. Regarding Template:Infobox nobility, I think it strange that when I look at Lettice Knollys, I have to look at all her husbands and children before I get to the date of birth (which, by the way, may easily be perceived as misogynic). There are also infoboxes like Mehmet II. In case you would like to make all person-related infoboxes uniform, please launch a campaign at WP:VILLAGEPUMP. I'd suggest you use Template:Infobox person in that case. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If we mark "predecessor", "successor", "title", "tenure", "children", "spouse" and such parameters, what are we left with? Plain Template:Infobox person with a shade of violet colour. In my opinion, Template:Infobox person is far more attractive than this infobox. Notable peers are usually notable for themselves only if they were granted the peerage title. If they inherited it, it's actually much more likely that their title (and everything associated with it, such as land) made them notable. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that more peers are notable for their title than for "residence". "And again, in feudalism, whence the phenomenon of nobility derives, they had to serve in armed conflicts by the definiton of their rank, and many did this in Europe's most famous wars yet without being military personnel in a modern sense." True, of course, but only for a small number of peers. And if "wars_and_battles" is neccessary regardless of how few articles need it, then what's wrong with having basic biographical information such as "children", "father", "mother" and "spouse", or peerage-related information such as "predecessor", "successor", "title" and "tenure"? "I think it strange that when I look at Lettice Knollys, I have to look at all her husbands and children before I get to the date of birth (which, by the way, may easily be perceived as misogynic)." How does this infobox avoid leading the reader to think that peers may have more than one spouse at the time? By simply ignoring the "spouse" parameter? Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Lettice Knollys box is your preferred Template:Infobox nobility, where the person's birth date comes last, not this talkpages' one. Again, please note that Template:Infobox person as well as Template:Infobox nobility also have dozens of parameters. Almost all medieval and pre-Restoration English peers took part in some armed conflicts; this is much more than "only ... a small number of peers". This peer infobox here -- other than the nobility one -- provides for a parameter called "Locality" which exactly addresses local influence or concentration of landed wealth. And please note that the title comes directly after the birth/death dates, so I don't understand what you mean by "I may be wrong, but it seems to me that more peers are notable for their title than for "residence"". You will hardly strive to deprive Template:Infobox nobility and Template:Infobox person of their 30+ parameters (box nobility has 36, the same number as box peer), so why attack this one here? Buchraeumer (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Infobox Nobility has less parameters than Infobox Peer because parameters such as issue-pipe only alter other parameters. No, I see nothing wrong with placing dates of birth and death last in the infobox, or first, for that matter. "Almost all medieval and pre-Restoration English peers took part in some armed conflicts; this is much more than 'only ... a small number of peers'." And ever since then, hardly any peer took part in an armed conflict that made him famous. Besides, there was a large number of medieval and pre-Restoration peers that never saw a battlefield. Do we really need to count all the British and French peers and peeresses that did not take part in an armed conflict to prove that they form majority? Anyway, how about a compromise? Can we place the title field right below the image, along with the rest of peerage-related parameters, and have dates and places of birth and death right below those parameters, while keeping the template's layout (which you like and I dislike)? Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem if you put the titles stuff directly below the picture and caption; but please keep the spouses, children, and parents further down, as you suggest above. O.K.? Buchraeumer (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a deal! Surtsicna (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy
Ok. Before I nominate this for deletion, would someone please explain to me why exactly this Infobox is not entirely redundant to Infobox nobility? All peers are noble, but not all nobles are peers — the scope of this ibx is much smaller than an already-established one. Why reinvent a smaller wheel? DBD 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This template contains parameters Infobox nobility doesn't have (see above discussion), but which are useful, so Template:Infobox nobility could be deleted as well, as all nobles may easily fit in here as well. Following your argument we would only need Template:Infobox Person. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from creator: Before I made this template I searched long and hard for an alternative, but could not find one. That was because Template:Infobox nobility existed, but wasn't categorised, so you'd have to stumble upon it by chance to know that there was one.

That being said, I still wouldn't replace this template with the nobility one. I created this template specifically with medieval peers in mind, and the role of the medieval peer (and early modern ones, I guess) was essentially different from that of modern, largely honorary peers. Their military, political, administrative and landowning roles were more important than the purely genealogical facts that seem to be the main focus of Template:Infobox nobility. "death cause" and "body discovered" are included because violent deaths were much more common back then. "locality" is essential, not only as the place of their main landholdings, but as the local community on which their power was based. "wars and battles" and "offices" reflect the fact that military service and (primarily military) office holding was considered the main responsibility of a medieval peer. Template:Infobox nobility, on the other hand, contains parameters that are redundant in a medieval context: the "date of christening" and "place of christening" are rarely known, and "occupation" is patently absurd.

The parameters of this template can certainly be improved upon (I notice that I've doubled up on "years active", for instance), and if anyone would like to rename it to "Template:Infobox medieval peer" or the like, I wouldn't object to that. But if it were to be deleted, then there would be many a poor medieval peer out there who would be very ill-served indeed on infobox information. Lampman (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But there were many medieval peers who never saw a battlefield. Peeresses never went into battle. Peers such as Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, for example, lived in the middle ages but never took part in a battle. We can't have an infobox designed specifically for medieval peers who took part in a battle. That would be silly. We need an infobox that would fit thousands of articles about peers. Only a very small fraction of those articles fits the "went-into-battle" criterium. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Peeresses (in the sense of a peeress in her own right) are such an anomaly as to safely be almost entirely ignored. Though noble titles could occasionally descend through a female line, women could for instance not sit in parliament, which from the early fourteenth century was the defining characteristic of the baronage. It is certainly true that not all peers saw battle; that's why the parameter is optional. It was nevertheless one of their primary functions, so to leave it out would be the silly thing. Lampman (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is overcrowded with parameters. Networth, Locality, Years active, Cause of death and Residence are all trivial information while Known for is redundant and unneccessary. Networths of peers are hardly notable enough to be given a special parameter in the infobox. There is absolutely no reason to have a field for the cause of death; it is never used in Template:Infobox person unless the subject is known for their cause of death. Since peers are known for being peers and not for dying in a certain manner, the parameter must be removed. Locality and residence are also silly parameters.

The infobox in the article about Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, is ridiculously long. The title parameter is so far away from the predecessor and successor parameters that they are disconnected. The names of his predecessor and successor should be close to the title they shared.

Anyway, waging wars was their primary function in the Middle Ages. But there have been thousands of peers after the 15th century. The number of peers that never took part in a battle by far exceeds the number of peers that did. In modern times, many peers have served as politicians (and prime ministers, i.e. political leaders of the kingdom), yet I see no "Political party" parameter. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Since peers are known for being peers and not for dying in a certain manner, the parameter must be removed." Following this logic the infobox should exist of one parameter only: "He was a peer". If you had read my comment above you would have seen that the infobox was designed specifically with medieval peers in mind – where the relevant facts are entirely different than for those of a modern age – and that I'd be happy to rename it to reflect this. I'd be happy to discuss the merits of individual parameters and their placement, but not based on what some individual editors may or may not find "silly". Lampman (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Template:Infobox officeholder
It has been suggested that this template be merged with Infobox officeholder. The discussion is located at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested changes
This template really needs improvement. The title should be displayed prominently, not relegated to the other fields. It should be displayed with an honorific prefix and suffix like Template:Infobox officeholder, which I like so much I use it for peers instead of this one. Also, can we change the color? If not, is there a way to manually change it? I really truly hate the lavenderish color. Should I just come up with an alternative or does anyone even care if I change it? —Мандичка YO 😜 13:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above sentiment & that Infobox peer should be displayed with an honorific prefix and suffix like Template:Infobox officeholder. Looking forward to hearing - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I also agree that Infobox peer should be displayed with an honorific prefix and suffix. In this infobox, the "title" parameter is followed by "tenure". I would suggest that "tenure" be followed directly underneath by "predecessor", "heir" and "successor", which relate very closely to the "title" parameter. Please comment below if you support or oppose that. -- Blairall (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this template should use Infobox person, not Infobox. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)