Wikipedia is a
free online
encyclopedia. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, there is no practical limit on Wikipedia's amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be included on Wikipedia, and what should be included. There are certain things Wikipedia is not – this page is a non-exhaustive list.
Content
Wikipedia is not a directory, dictionary or product catalogue
"WP:DIRECTORY" and "WP:NOTSALE" redirect here. For a listing of Wikipedia's directories and indexes, see
Wikipedia:Directory. For "adminship is not for sale" policy, see
WP:ANOT § SALE.
Definitions or dictionary entries. Although articles should begin with a
good definition, they also should provide content beyond this initial description. In rare cases, words or definitions themselves may be encyclopedic subjects, such as the
definition of planet,
Macedonia (terminology) or
truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project
Wiktionary. Dictionary definitions should be
transwikied there.
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or people. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having
lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
The
white or
yellow pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic. Likewise, disambiguation pages (such as
John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the
notable ones.
Directories, directory entries,
electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules,
format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings.
Sales catalogues. Articles should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent
sourceand a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just
product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a
price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.
Indiscriminate cross-categorizations, such as
Tongans employed by Toyota or
Korean restaurants in Reykjavik. Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also
Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
Simple listings without
contextual information. Examples include: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by
HarperCollins but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author
Veronica Roth.
Wikipedia is not for advocacy nor original thought
Original research and personal inventions. If you have completed new primary research on a topic, conceived a new scientific theory, coined a new word, or even
just made up something one day, articles will only cover your work if it is discussed in independent
reliable sources.
Personal essays. Although some topics, particularly current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb
soapboxes", Wikipedia is not a place to express your opinions. In the unusual situation where your opinions are significant enough to discuss in articles, let other people write about them. Essays on Wikipedia-related topics are an exception, but should remain on user pages or project pages.
Discussion forums. Articles' talk pages are solely for discussing how to improve articles. They are not for general discussion about the article's subject or for finding technical assistance. You can talk to other editors about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, but these conversations should not intrude into articles.
Wikipedia's reference desk is an exception to this guideline.
Advocacy or propaganda. Articles should not attempt to recruit readers to commercial, political, scientific, religious, national or even sports-related causes. However, articles may discuss these causes from a
neutral point of view.
Gossip or scandal-mongering. Content
about living people is required to meet especially high standards of reliability, to avoiding
libelling subjects or infringing their right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to
attack someone's reputation.
Self-promotion. Although it is tempting to
write about yourself or your projects, it can be difficult to maintain a
neutral point of view, because you will have an interest in portraying yourself in the best possible light. Having this
conflict of interest also makes it difficult for you to judge whether you truly meet Wikipedia's standards for
notability. Excessively relying on autobiographical sources, such as your
résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable.
Link collections, whether the links are external or internal. Although articles often list useful links for further reading in
"see also" and
external links sections, these lists can unduly dwarf their parent articles if they grow too large. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, linking one major site may be more appropriate than linking every site. Exceptions to this guideline are
disambiguation pages and certain
stand-alone lists.
Personal web pages. Although editors may maintain user pages where
limited autobiographical information can be presented, these should not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. User pages should not focus on social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
File storage areas. Only upload
files to be used in articles or project pages. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the
Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
Dating services. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable. However, you very well may form new friendships as you go about improving the encyclopedia.
Memorials or genealogies. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased people. Nor is it a place to document family histories, except to contextualise articles on
notable people. (The
list of deceased editors is an exception.)
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
Instruction manuals.Describing to the reader how bakers make bread, how potters shape vases or how athletes perform a pole-vault is acceptable; instructing the reader how to do these things is not. Articles should not read like manuals, tutorials, cookbooks, or advice columns. Such guides may be welcome at
Wikibooks instead.
Travel guides. An article on
Paris should mention landmarks, such as the
Eiffel Tower and the
Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the
"best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the
Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, an article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project,
Wikivoyage.
Game guides. Articles on games should briefly summarize their plot and the main actions the player performs. Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the
BFG9000 from the
Doom series). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs and detailed coverage are not. See also
WP:WAF and
WP:VGSCOPE. As of
a 2021 decision to start allowing them, such guides may be welcome at
Wikibooks instead.
Internet guides. Articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the
Current events portal for examples.
Usage, slang, or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or slang (such as
Klingon language,
Cockney, or
Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers are not.
FAQs. Articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information as neutral prose.
Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a
textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as
Wikibooks,
Wikisource, and
Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in an article.
Scientific journals. An article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the
lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by readers without knowledge in the given field before advancing to detailed explanations. While
wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. See
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect
common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Academic language in the text should be explained in lay terms.
Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "
Slate industry in Wales" and "
Island fox" are examples. Writing about "
Oak trees in North Carolina" or "
Blue trucks", however, would likely constitute a
POV fork or
original research, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.
Wikipedia is not a collection of
unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert
their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating
undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid
advertising and unverified claims (for films, see
WP:NFF). In particular:
Scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the
2028 U.S. presidential election and
2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the
2040 U.S. presidential election and
2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example,
Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.
Items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item.
Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "
Tropical Storm Alex (2028)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "
septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as
chemical elements documented before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties.
Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles aboutnotableartistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on
weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "
Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
Although current scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.
Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.
Articles should include up-to-date information and stand-alone articles on significant recent events are often acceptable. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure articles are not:
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand reports on breaking stories. However, our sister projects
Wikisource and
Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently
verified information.
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring
notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in
news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic
tone, events must be put into encyclopedic
context. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project
Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project.
Who's who. Even when an event is notable, the people involved may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event,
in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when a person is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be explained and contextualised. Merely being true, or even
verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles should not be:
Summary-only descriptions of works. Although articles on creative works should contain concise summaries of the work, they
should also discuss these works' development, design, reception, significance, and influence.
Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on
Wikisource and linked to from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1928 are protected by
copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See
Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.
Logs of software updates. Use
reliable third-party (not
self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.
The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views.
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is
an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The
Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.
Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.
Community
Wikipedia is not an anarchy, democracy or forum for free speech
Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy, democracy or any other
political system. Although Wikipedia is free, open and self-governing, it restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia – it is not a place to test the limits of
anarchism or
unregulated free speech. Its primary means of decision making and conflict resolution is
editing and
discussion leading to
consensus. Voting is only used for certain matters, such as
electing the
Arbitration Committee. Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys
can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.
"WP:BURO" and "WP:BUREAU" redirect here. For the "bureaucrat" user access level, see
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.
While Wikipedia
has many elements of a
bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a
quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Although
some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.
While Wikipedia's written
policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the
letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia,
ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through
consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Policies and guidelines themselves
may be changed to reflect
evolving consensus.
Procedural, grammatical or coding errors are
not grounds for reverting contributions – unless the error cannot easily be fixed – nor grounds for rejecting proposals.
Research on Wikipedia's content, processes, and community can be valuable. Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other content on Wikipedia is not typically controversial, since all of Wikipedia is
open and freely usable. However, Wikipedia is not a laboratory: research projects that are
disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not permitted. Before starting a potentially controversial project,[1] researchers should open discussion at the
Village Pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission. Regardless of the type of project, researchers are advised to be as transparent as possible on their user pages, disclosing information such as institutional connections and intentions.[2]
Some editors explicitly request to not be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt-out of research.
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies.
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Users are expected to interact
civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not
insult, harass, intimidate or
make legal threats against people you disagree with. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's
dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and
arbitrate disputes between others.
In
large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions.
Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not
organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a
consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.
"WP:NOTREQUIRED" redirects here. For "References are not optional" policy, see
WP:OPTIONAL.
Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time.
^Projects that are "potentially controversial" include any project that involves directly changing article content (contributors are expected to have as their primary motivation the betterment of the encyclopedia, without a competing motivation such as research objectives), any project that involves contacting a very large number of editors, and any project that involves asking sensitive questions about their real-life identities.