 | This is aninformation page. It is neither anencyclopedia article nor one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels ofconsensus andvetting. |
This page explains how to apply theDefining concept in the context ofWikipedia categorization, by quoting the relevant guidance in several related guidelines.
Here's how the DEFINING concept is described:
Defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one thatreliable sourcescommonly andconsistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. Articles should normally be included in the categories that are most closely related to the subject's defining characteristics. Categories should not group subjects bytrivial characteristics that have little relevance to the topics, unless it can be shown that such a characteristic or grouping is notable.
- For example,Italian andartist are defining characteristics ofCaravaggio, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them, so that article is included in categories such asCategory:Italian Baroque painters. However,Category:Italian people with dark eyebrows would likely not be defining.
Here's the application of DEFINING for the categorization of biographical articles:
Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes the reason(s) for the person'snotability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. The principle of "defining characteristics" applies to categorizing people, as it does to any other categorization. As theguideline on categorization says:
Defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one thatreliable sourcescommonly andconsistently refer to[2] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
- For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless their legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to their acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. Similarly,celebrities commercializing a fragrance should not be in theperfumers category; not everything a celebrity doesafter becoming famous warrants categorization.
Here's how DEFINING is applied in the context of overcategorization:
One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articlesby their defining characteristics. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:
- a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is anadjectivenoun ..." or "Subject, anadjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each ofadjective andnoun may be deemed to be "defining" forsubject.
- if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in thelead section of an article (regardless of whether it is currently mentioned in the lead), it is probablynot defining;
- if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probablynot defining.
Often, users can become confused between the standards ofnotability,verifiability, and"definingness".Notability is the test that is used to determine whether a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine whether particular information should be included in an article about a topic.Definingness is the test that is used to determine whether a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of alist is often the preferred alternative.
It is recommended to name or rename categories to have as little vagueness as possible, discouraging non-defining articles from being added. If you have just invented a subcategory on the spot that lacks a main article, it may not be a defining attribute. Examples include:
- Physicians instead ofMedically-skilled people
- Quadcopters instead ofFast-moving drones
- Fiction about robots instead ofRobots in fiction
In disputed cases, thecategories for discussion process may be used to determine whether a particular characteristic is defining or not.
For example,there is consensus that places should not be categorized as established in the year of the earliest surviving historical record of the place.