Talk:Farmer

Farmer/farming (agriculture) merge?
Doesn't seem like there's many references to farmers (or farming) to warrant a separate article. Perhaps a merge and redirect with some expanded details in the farms and farmers section of the agriculture article would be appropriate. - Intricated talk page |undefined 05:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There are not references here, but there are more in Star Trek. Off the top of my head, I can think of people like Shakaar Edon, Furel, and Lupaza. There is probably some stuff on Bajoran farmers in general that could go here. In addition, there is William Samuels, who was a farmer. There is also Mullibok and the other farmers from Jeraddo. There are farmer references from TOS as well. This article needs expansion, not merging. There are also the Klingons/Romulans from the "" arc, who were essentially living as farmers. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  05:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, the farmer page is probably better off at farming and have farms and farmers as part of the whole, i.e. Archaeology. The farm section of the agriculture article can be moved to the farming article, with a see also note, i.e. Borg. - Intricated talk page |undefined 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is definately enough content in all of canon Trek for us to go beyond cramming everything into one page, using scientist as an example. The simpliest approach would be for us to have an article on "the art, science or practice of" (farming or agriculture) and one on the occupational title (i.e. "A farmer is..."). I've added a few links here that were not linked on other pages, which indicate the popularity of the term Special:Whatlinkshere/Farmer. --Alan del Beccio 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable argument and one I'm more than willing to accept, but this isn't a new issue: just how we deal with these general topics and their related professions. Yes, there is a good amount of references to farmers, but this is also true about biologists and geologists (both redirects to the general root topic), not to mention the non-existant philosophers of philosophy, anthropologists of anthropology, and cyberneticists of cybernetics.  Like Jaf pointed out about Miner/Mining, MA is missing a standard for this. If we can set one standard (i.e. at least xx characters were referenced as being of this profession means the profession gets it's own page), that would be the best solution. - Intricated  talk page |undefined 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, occupation titles and "the occupation" would be best separated, as it helps not only in categorizing, but in standardizing this title (no matter how "generic" is it) with other titles that have been referenced, dabo girl, bartender, chef, etc. Otherwise we might as well merge the latter title references with their associated occupations, i.e. dabo. --Alan del Beccio 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)