Wikipedia is a
encyclopedia. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge. What to exclude is determined by an
online community committed to building a high-quality encyclopedia. These exclusions are summarized as things that Wikipedia is not.
Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for readers with low-bandwidth connections and on
mobile platforms, since it directly affects page download time (see
Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see
Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly.
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with
appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project
Wiktionary. Missing dictionary definitions should be
transwikied there. Wikipedia articles are not:
Definitions. Articles should begin with a
good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them. In some cases, however, the definition of a word may be an encyclopedic subject, such as the
definition of planet.
Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as
Macedonia (terminology) or
truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual
numbers are also acceptable.
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our
policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:
Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as
peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms,
open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however,
reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is
verifiable, and not merely the editor's
Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. (Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the
Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant
talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the
talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a
Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. However, these should be used for questions of reasonable academic interest; WP does not serve as a technical help line or customer support for products or companies that have articles.
Wikipedia is not a
battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to
usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for:
propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a
neutral point of view. You might wish to start a
blog or visit a
forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb
soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for
current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a
neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikipedia's sister project
Wikinews, however, has "opinion" pages allowing commentary on articles.
Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the
Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article
talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines).
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
Wikipedia is neither a
mirror nor a
repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:
External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See
Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.
File storage areas. Please upload only
files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to
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.
Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy
Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (
WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.)
Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see
WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included.
If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even just a single page, many free and commercial sites provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on your own server. See the
installation guide at MediaWiki.org for information on doing this.
Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations,
aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project
Wikiquote. 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. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". 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.
Electronic program guides. 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.
A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent
sourceand encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just
product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a
price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works 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
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:
Instruction manuals and cookbooks. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an
article should not read like a "how-to" style
advice column (
medical or otherwise) or
suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the
imperative mood about how to use or do something is not. Such guides may be welcome at
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, a Wikipedia 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,
Game guides. An article about a
game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game. 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
BFG 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:VGSCOPE. As of
a 2021 decision to start allowing them, such guides may be welcome at
Internet guides. Wikipedia 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.
FAQs. Wikipedia articles should not list
frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
Textbooks and annotated texts. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, 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
Wikiversity. However, examples intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
Scientific journals. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Article titles should reflect
common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. 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 any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. 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.
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" are fitting 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, rumors, 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 forward-looking 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:
Individual 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
2024 U.S. presidential election and
2028 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the
2036 U.S. presidential election and
2044 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, the
ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.
Individual 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 Alberto (2024)" 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 currently accepted 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 and rumors 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.
Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a
primary source. However, our sister projects
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
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. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see
WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, 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
Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it 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.)
Even when an individual 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 overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
To provide encyclopedic value,
data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in
§ Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even
verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:
Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats
creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. For more information regarding summaries, see
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation.
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 from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1927 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.
Exhaustive 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
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.
The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following relate to Wikipedia's governance and processes.
Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech
"WP:BURO" and "WP:BUREAU" redirect here. For the "bureaucrat" user access level, see
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 already-existing 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 considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia,
ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through
consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves
may be changed to reflect
A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
Research about Wikipedia's content, processes, and the people involved can provide valuable insights and understanding that benefit public knowledge, scholarship, and the Wikipedia community, but Wikipedia is not a public laboratory. 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, research projects that are
disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privileges. Before starting a potentially controversial project, 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.
Some editors explicitly request not to 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.
Every user is expected to interact with others
civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not
harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. 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.
Do not use Wikipedia to make
legal or other threats against Wikipedia, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a
"WP:NOTREQUIRED" redirects here. For "References are not optional" essay, see
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.
Wikipedia is not a lot of other things as well. We cannot anticipate every bad idea that someone might have. Almost everything on this page is here because somebody came up with a
bad idea that had not been anticipated. (See
WP:BEANS—it is, in fact, strongly discouraged to anticipate them.) In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something when there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.
Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via
the talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.
^Projects that are "potentially controversial" include, but are not limited to, 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.