Wikipedia:Defining
 | This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia'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 of consensus and vetting. |
This page explains how to apply the Defining concept in the context of Wikipedia categorization, by quoting the relevant guidance in several related guidelines.
From Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining
Here's how the DEFINING concept is described:
The
reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, and so of the article on him, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them.
From Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people § 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's
reliable sources commonly and consistently 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 the perfumers category; not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.
- 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,
From Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics
Here's how DEFINING is applied in the context of overcategorization:
One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles
by their defining characteristics. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. 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 an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
- if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
- if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
Often, users can become confused between the standards of
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 a listis 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 of Medically-skilled people
- Quadcopters instead of Fast-moving drones
- Fiction about robots instead of Robots in fiction
In disputed cases, the
categories for discussionprocess 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.
See also
- Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality § General#6