This category is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles
This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2011 September 25. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Why should our occupations categorization system be borrowed from the US governmnet. - SimonP 21:55, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
At one time this was listed on CFD for the same sort of objections. It survived because it was better to use the system because it is well-documented. It's easy to look-up the general classification for any job, plus it provides room for growth. We (Wikipedians) all have different ideas on what "should be" the structure, but leveraging this pre-made solution will keep us from long disagreements on the format. -- Netoholic@ 02:19, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
This US government system was built for a very different system of classification than they use. Since ours uses cross categorization we can be much more logical. E.g. a musician can be placed in bot the arts and entertainment sections, so we do not need to cram two different concepts into one category. - SimonP 03:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Actually in the future "astronaut" could appear in every category because everyone who enters space could be referred to as an astronaut. The reason it appears in the "Transportation" category is because that is where pilots and flight engineers are categorized, and that is what the prototypical astronaut was. —Mike 22:27, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Because YOU want to make them more intuitive? Are you going to continue to be personally responsible for this section? What happens when this category tree grows so large, inter-twined, arbitrary, and unruly that practically nothing can make it usefull for occupational research? I find your actions of going against consensus to keep the SOC system as the basis of this tree deplorable. -- Netoholic@ 22:11, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
I simply believe this category should be treated like any other. If you have problems with Wikipedia's system take it to Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Do not try to carve off one section and make it utterly different from all the others. - SimonP 22:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Some architects and engineers perform similar or overlapping tasks but this is generally only in the design of buildings and other structures. However, most engineers don't work on buildings and structures ie mechanical, environmental, geological, metallurgical, ceramic, chemical, petrolium, nuclear, electical, aerospace, mining, and manufacturing are all engineering fields that have nothing to do with architecture. Most if not all of these fields would be better suited in a general engineering field seperate from architecture.Engr civil20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
