ADSK already provides many localized versions of Revit. Plus imperial and metric. Rolling out parameters such as occupancy type, don't limit what info goes there or how it is related to the code. As an example - doors already have fire rating. That's not the same the world over. But usable the world over.
You second point is exactly what needs to be avoided. Otherwise the information isn't ubiquitous, usable or understandable by all. Maybe when you create a door you really use the Window template and window placement tool? Of course not. At one point Revit just had Width for doors. Now it has Width and Rough Width. We all get that and it works. It is an industry standard. Both are in the template as type parameters. But can be switched to instance. (In fact I was just doing that moments ago.) They can be type in that family, instance in this and everything still works. It is just data.
In early releases of Revit, there was only Width for doors. So people made up "Rough Opening", "RO", "R.O." (with or without space?) . Everytime someone did this it was a different GUID. That's a mess to manage as an industry. Should ADSK remove Width and Rough Width from doors and let everyone make up their own fields? Of course not.
Doors are a great example. They are pretty similar the world over. American doors have square edges. Italian doors like their Rabeted frames. The English would prefer a rebate. Russians like to upholster their doors. But they all do pretty much the same thing.
Imagine if every door on the internet you download was built the same way with the same data.
And yes - all of you not filling out the tool tip for your parameters - shame on you.