Talk:Arthur Drewry

CATDEF
, can you explain your reasoning for re-inserting so many categories? WP:DEFCAT is clear: "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, in Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio." WP:NONDEF has more. Someone's date of birth and place of origin are frequently characteristics that reliable sources commonly and consistently define a subject as having. Drewry is not commonly and consistently described in terms of being a JP, a councillor or his WWI service. That's not why he's notable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that anything that's infobox-worthy is most likely a defcat, and that many of the categories (especially councillors and political candidates, since both tend to be a significant path to a political career) meet the "significant occupations" part in Categorization of people, regardless of whether or not they confer notability. BTW it does say military service qualifies, albeit for a different reason. ミラP 14:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * neither WP:CAT (which contains WP:DEFCAT), WP:OCAT (which contains WP:NONDEF) or WP:COP make any reference to infoboxes. I am not aware of any precedence whereby what's in the infobox is the deciding factor. What has been used as a guide, and which seems sensible, is what's in the WP:LEAD. This is specified in WP:NONDEF: "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". If you want your infobox-worthy idea to be adopted, take it to Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization, but I'm not going to re-write guidelines on the fly and, for now, I suggest we stick to WP:NONDEF. That said... being a JP and his WWI service are not in the infobox, so aren't you saying that you were mistaken on 2 out of 3 points? Don't let me stop you if you want to persuade yourself you were mistaken! :-)
 * You are right that, as well as WP:NONDEF, we have WP:COP, specifically WP:COPDEF. WP:COPDEF says, "For example, a film actor who moonlighted as a substitute teacher should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a teacher unless their teaching career was notable in its own right, was a significant career for them, or was relevant to their acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before entering careers or taking the one job that made them notable; those transient jobs should not necessarily be categorized." Most men of Drewry's age were conscripted (although he enlisted), but that's not what made him notable, so that's why I removed his military service. It was a transient job before fame. However, you are right that COPDEF does specifically name military service. I will raise this at COPDEF, but for now I relent on that categorisation.
 * However, I do not see that being a councillor or a JP count as "significant occupations". Both are unpaid roles, so they're barely even occupations! (Most MPs were councillors, but we usually (practice does vary) don't categorise them as councillors because they're known for being MPs.) They, together, attract one sentence in the whole article. They clearly fail DEFCAT. They are not how reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.
 * So, let's keep the military categorisation (pending any insight from people are COPDEF). You have presented no argument to keep the JP categorisation (and indeed made an argument against keeping it!), so let's remove that. That leaves his councillor role. Can you show me that the majority of reliable sources talk about Drewry as a councillor? Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While both are editing guidelines, WP:COPDEF gives larger depth to this situation than WP:CATDEF, and I'd like to mention that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Many articles on significant British politicians mention councillor status and attempted political candidate status: Vince Cable Cable became a Labour councillor in Glasgow in the 1970s [...] After standing unsuccessfully Parliament four times), Theresa May (She also served as a councillor for Durnsford in Merton. After two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the House of Commons, and Jeremy Corbyn (In 1974, he was elected to Haringey Council and also became Secretary of Hornsey Constituency Labour Party; Corbyn was elected on his first try). Meanwhile in my native United States, Clay Aiken is described in the lede as a singer, television personality, actor, politician, and activist, the fourth one alluding to the lede's fourth paragraph which states that he ran for Congress in North Carolina's 2nd congressional district [and] lost to Republican incumbent Renee Ellmers in the general election., the fifth paragraph of the Melissa Gilbert lede states that she ran for U.S. Congress as a Democrat in Michigan's 8th congressional district and [...] dropped out because of head and neck injuries sustained in a 2012 accident., the fourth paragraph of the Cynthia Nixon lede is dedicated to her gubernatorial run in New York State, the lede of Joe Biden (a WP:GA) mentions that he was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. All this proves that, politician or not, being a councillor and political candidate are worth mention in a lede and therefore category status.
 * As for the JP thing, they're technically mentionable in the lead by way of post-nominal letters, so that applies too. That is why we have categories for MBEs, OBEs, baronets, even if people don't get notability from them. And it's important to note that councillors get pre-nominal letters "Cllr".
 * Simply put, reiterating and summarizing my thoughts, the fact that it's mentioned in the ledes of several people who are significant enough to have big ledes makes it clear that being a councillor and/or political candidate is a significant path to a political career is just like education being a significant path to a career in general. ミラP 18:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to discuss appropriate categorisation of Vince Cable at Talk:Vince Cable, etc., or perhaps on an appropriate WikiProject. Drewry did not pursue a further political career. I have no opinion on how to categorise Clay Aiken, but it clearly has zero relevance here. "Cllr" and "JP" would only apply while the individual is those things. They don't remain after the person has left the role. The lead for this article makes no mention of his being a JP or a councillor or his military service. It would be odd to add any of those to the lead for this article.
 * You offered a reason for reverting a change I made, and then reverted a large number of other edits citing this article as why. That reason was WP:OTHERSTUFF, but you haven't even brought it up here in this discussion. I am confused as to your general point. Bondegezou (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It turns out the inclusion of military service at COPDEF was a recent addition that was not supported by consensus. It has now been removed. Bondegezou (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)