Category talk:Japanese people by occupation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is the point of this page, no other <Nation> people by nationality exists but this one. I think it is assumed if there is a <Nation> People, that category is "by occupation". -- EmperorBMA|話す 17:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See

Took me two minutes, including cut-and-paste time, to find these. --Calton 21:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the list. I update my statement: There are only a few of them, while most countries do not have the additional category. -- EmperorBMA|話す 00:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also:

You're not trying very hard, are you? --Calton 02:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also:

Looks like there are some gaps, but your statement seems false in general. Shall I continue? --Calton 02:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Even more:

There's a definite bias towards the developed world, but I'm not seeing the problem here. --Calton 03:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The behavior is still inconsistent between articles. At the very least we should standardize on one or the other. In matters of efficiency I tend toward minimalism, so I personally favor putting occupations under the main article. In my opinion it unnecessarily duplicates pages and it hides some occupations (scientist, artist) and does not consistently hide others (politician, emperor, king), therefore it is redundant. -- EmperorBMA|話す 14:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've read that three times and I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "Inconsistent between articles"? "Standardize on one or the other"? "Minimalism"? "Duplication"? How about some actual examples? --Calton 20:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • What I want to determine is whether we should be separating "by occupation" from 'Category:"nation" people' or not. It seems needless to separate occupations, when most people of a country are defined by occupation anyway. What other categorization schema do we use for people, but their occupation? If we had "people by educational demographic" or something I'd understand the need for "by occupation", but since we do not, I believe that by occupation is the assumption, not the exception. I'm sorry for not being having been crystal clear with this, but I wasn't sure of the depth of the situation, because my test Category:People by occupation does not seem to have all the countries that have "people by occupation" as subcategories, so my test was flawed.
I think what I did wrong was use Category:People by occupation's subcategories as the list of countries that had this, but that was obviously incorrect. My problem is, why do we separate the people by occupation thing from nationality for some countries, but not others. (Admittedly it is less of an argument now that you found all the rest) -- EmperorBMA|話す 03:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • P.S. Sorry for all the confusion, I must have said it clearer in my head than I wrote it... (Communication skill critical failure and all...) -- EmperorBMA|話す 03:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I came here via RFC. I don't see any problem with this category. At worst, it hurts nothing. Maurreen 05:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks to everyone for being *really* patient here. If anyone agrees with my position (by tomorrow, say) I'll keep this open, otherwise I think I'll remove it from RFC. -- EmperorBMA|話す 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)