The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Rename to "Fantasy parodies". R adiant _>|< 19:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Redundant to Category:Artist groups and collectives. >>sparkit| TALK<< 17:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 13:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The category itself is inherently vague and unnecessary. There is no possible way for anything to list all practicing lawyers, or all American lawyers regardless. There is a constant influx of lawyers who practice law after getting a law degree, and an outflux who die or no longer practice law. Are we to list every single American lawyer ever, from law school professors at obscure colleges to long-dead attorneys from the 19th century? The list would be endless, ridiculously difficult to compile, and impractical. Not to mention that not everyone with a law degree/bar admission practices law, and America has millions of lawyers who practice law in many fields, from corporate law to divorce law to international law. Are we to list all them, too?
I propose Wikipedia create (or if it already exists, merge with) an article of Notable American Lawyers. This category would not include every notable person with a law degree/bar admission, and restrict subjects to those who are icons in the American legal field: Clarence Darrow, Thurgood Marshall, Johnnie Cochran, and the like, while restricting unneccessary politicians and celebrities whose only qualification is they got a law degree. Howard Cosell and Star Jones for example, do NOT belong in this category. This article is impractical and should be removed offkilter 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
While a renaming of the category to "Noteworthy American Lawyers" or "Notable American Attorneys" is advisable, and a paring down of the list to exclude unfamiliar or those without significant accomplishment, to delete the category entirely is too extreme.
Obviously, the towering figures in the field like Marshall and Darrow belong, but, yes, it is also interesting to note that celebrities who make their name in other fields hold a law degree. Where to draw the line can be up to wikipedians in the usual manner. Coolshoes
My main issue with this article is that it is hardly a category at all. The list is so broad that it contains so many members from so many categories that it fails to be a category on lawyers; rather, it is a category on famous people with a law degree. Just as George Washington belongs primarily in the "presidents" or "American Generals" category, a great many members of this group should be removed from this and placed in their rightful place. Politicians, commentators, jurists, and actors don't belong in the lawyer category, they belong in the politician, commentator, jurist, and actor category. I think that deleting this article is preferable because, short of renaming and paring it, the category is far too broad and too inclusive. Frankly, I think that creating a new category for "Notable American Lawyers" and placing members who fit strictly by that definition, notable in the field of LAW, is far simpler and easier than a mass reorganization of a chaotic category.-- Offkilter 08:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep! This is one of hundreds (thousands?) of categories deliniating people by occupaction and nationality. See Category:Nationalities by occupation and Category:Occupations by nationality. I can see that there are disputes about this particular category, but it necessary in the general category sorting scheme. Because the category is so large, I would suggest it be sorted into subcategories as much as possible. -- Reinyday, 21:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) -- Kbdank71 13:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Or everybody who has ever been a guest presenter on Saturday Night Live. This can be safely deleted as a comprehensive list already exists. JW 11:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Rename to "Fantasy parodies". R adiant _>|< 19:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Redundant to Category:Artist groups and collectives. >>sparkit| TALK<< 17:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 13:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The category itself is inherently vague and unnecessary. There is no possible way for anything to list all practicing lawyers, or all American lawyers regardless. There is a constant influx of lawyers who practice law after getting a law degree, and an outflux who die or no longer practice law. Are we to list every single American lawyer ever, from law school professors at obscure colleges to long-dead attorneys from the 19th century? The list would be endless, ridiculously difficult to compile, and impractical. Not to mention that not everyone with a law degree/bar admission practices law, and America has millions of lawyers who practice law in many fields, from corporate law to divorce law to international law. Are we to list all them, too?
I propose Wikipedia create (or if it already exists, merge with) an article of Notable American Lawyers. This category would not include every notable person with a law degree/bar admission, and restrict subjects to those who are icons in the American legal field: Clarence Darrow, Thurgood Marshall, Johnnie Cochran, and the like, while restricting unneccessary politicians and celebrities whose only qualification is they got a law degree. Howard Cosell and Star Jones for example, do NOT belong in this category. This article is impractical and should be removed offkilter 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
While a renaming of the category to "Noteworthy American Lawyers" or "Notable American Attorneys" is advisable, and a paring down of the list to exclude unfamiliar or those without significant accomplishment, to delete the category entirely is too extreme.
Obviously, the towering figures in the field like Marshall and Darrow belong, but, yes, it is also interesting to note that celebrities who make their name in other fields hold a law degree. Where to draw the line can be up to wikipedians in the usual manner. Coolshoes
My main issue with this article is that it is hardly a category at all. The list is so broad that it contains so many members from so many categories that it fails to be a category on lawyers; rather, it is a category on famous people with a law degree. Just as George Washington belongs primarily in the "presidents" or "American Generals" category, a great many members of this group should be removed from this and placed in their rightful place. Politicians, commentators, jurists, and actors don't belong in the lawyer category, they belong in the politician, commentator, jurist, and actor category. I think that deleting this article is preferable because, short of renaming and paring it, the category is far too broad and too inclusive. Frankly, I think that creating a new category for "Notable American Lawyers" and placing members who fit strictly by that definition, notable in the field of LAW, is far simpler and easier than a mass reorganization of a chaotic category.-- Offkilter 08:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep! This is one of hundreds (thousands?) of categories deliniating people by occupaction and nationality. See Category:Nationalities by occupation and Category:Occupations by nationality. I can see that there are disputes about this particular category, but it necessary in the general category sorting scheme. Because the category is so large, I would suggest it be sorted into subcategories as much as possible. -- Reinyday, 21:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) -- Kbdank71 13:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Or everybody who has ever been a guest presenter on Saturday Night Live. This can be safely deleted as a comprehensive list already exists. JW 11:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply