Further information: Wikipedia:User pages

Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter. You may n
ot host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are
not:
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should b
e used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia.
Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function
as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is i
rrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you are looking to make a personal w
ebpage or blog or to post your rsum, please make use of one of the many free provi
ders on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The foc
us of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather provi
ding a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wiki
pedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.
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 yo
u 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 relationshi
ps or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual
orientation are unacceptable. However, you very well may form new friendships a
s you go about improving the encyclopedia.
Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notabi
lity requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, r
elatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (For valid
use examples outside of article space, see WP:RIP.)
Content for encyclopedia-unrelated projects. Don't store material unrelated
to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see WP:UPNOT for examples of what m
ay not be included.
If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on
something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many free and comme
rcial sites that provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on you
r server. See the installation guide at MediaWiki.org for information on doing t
his. See also Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.
Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page and user t
alk page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. M
ore importantly, your user pages are not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and e
xists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. Se
e User page help for current consensus guidelines on user pages.
Wikipedia is not a directory
"WP:DIRECTORY" redirects here. For a listing of Wikipedia's directories and inde
xes, see Wikipedia:Directory.
See also: MOS:LISTS, WP:Stand-alone lists and WP:Embedded lists
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NOPRICES
WP:NOTCATALOG
WP:NOTCATALOGUE
WP:NOTDIR
WP:NOTDIRECTORY
WP:NOTGENEALOGY
WP:NOTQUOTE
WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE

WP:NOTTVGUIDE
WP:NOTWHITE
WP:NOTYELLOW
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, Wikipe
dia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.
Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles a
re 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, ther
e is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they
are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia als
o includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged
groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Sta
nd-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some
sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whethe
r someone has been featured in several external sources (on- or offline). Less w
ell known people may be mentioned within other articles.
The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax nu
mbers and e-mail addresses are not encyclopedic. Likewise, disambiguation pages
(such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person in
the world named John Smith just the notable ones.
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for
conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list up
coming events, current promotions, current schedules, 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. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with
an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business o
f the topic of the article.
Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availabil
ity information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for
the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sou
rces (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of j
ust 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 t
he prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single prod
uct from different vendors or retailers.
Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultur
al / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing
in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered suffic
ient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is
in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategori
zation for this issue in categories.
Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not l
imited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (exce
pt CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estate
s, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attraction
s. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information shoul
d be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are perm
itted.
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
Policy shortcuts:

WP:GAMEGUIDE
WP:NOTADVICE
WP:NOTCASE
WP:NOTFAQ
WP:NOTGUIDE
WP:NOTHOWTO
WP:NOTJARGON
WP:NOTMANUAL
WP:NOTJOURNAL
WP:NOT PAPERS
WP:NOTRECIPE
WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
WP:NOTTRAVEL
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or
textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:
Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and
things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookboo
k, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes
tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the read
er how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the rea
der in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.[4] Such guid
es may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eif
fel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the
"best" restaurants, nor the current price of a caf au lait on the Champs-lyses. Wik
ipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or c
ulinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclus
ion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attracti
on, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often m
ention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list thos
e that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, yo
ur contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.
Video game guides. An article about a video game should summarize the main a
ctions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, ite
ms, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right in gaming context (
such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Walk-throughs or detailed coverage of
specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, cha
racter moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropri
ate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the ga
me or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE.
Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the na
ture, 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 fact
s 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 provided as neutral prose within the appropriate
article(s).
Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a
textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject ma
tter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, w
ith leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong
on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some ki
nds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct,
may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be p

resented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field.
Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the a
rticle should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by a
ny 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 writt
en on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, inst
ead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just fo
r academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminolog
y, whenever possible.
Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to facto
r Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to si
tuation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable wh
en the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomen
on or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a
subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences a
cross international borders; articles such as "Slate industry in Wales" and "Isl
and fox" are fitting examples. Writing about "oak trees in North Carolina" or a
"blue truck", however, would likely constitute a POV fork or original research,
and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Policy shortcuts:
WP:BALL
WP:CBALL
WP:CRYSTAL
WP:CRYSTALBALL
WP:FUTURE
WP:NOTCRYSTAL
WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL
WP:RUMOUR
WP:SPECULATION
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not pr
edict 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 discussio
n and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects
or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. I
t is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predi
ctions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources o
r 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 articl
es about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoi
d advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:
... but Wikipedia does not.
Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if th
e event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite unti
l the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in
progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate
topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By
comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or eve
nts surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 ar
e not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verif
iable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are
inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be app

ropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative article

s 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.
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 n
ames is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Arlene (2017)" is not, even though it is v
irtually certain that such a storm will occur. Similarly, articles about words f
ormed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are no
t encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. C
ertain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chem
ical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory, provided t
hat scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties
.
Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, specul
ation, 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 about notable arti
stic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on
Weapons of 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 acc
epted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture s
uch projections.
Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although
Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short art
icles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.
Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verif
ied, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an articl
e about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicab
le. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyc
lopedic content.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NOTNEWS
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER
WP:NOT#JOURNALISM
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS
WP:NOTWHOSWHO
WP:NOTDIARY
See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)
As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current an
d up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone article
s on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable
for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:
Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking s
tories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister proj
ects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sou
rces. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical sig
nificance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verif
ied information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and eve
nts. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics,
most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news r
eporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficien
t basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent
developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized o
r otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not
suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
Who's who. 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 e
vent, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about tha
t event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:
Biographies of living persons for more details.)
A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involve
d in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can b
e very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lea
d to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal
scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of
a person.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Policy shortcuts:
WP:IINFO
WP:INDISCRIMINATE
WP:NOTCHANGELOG
WP:NOTLYRICS
WP:NOT#LYRICS
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK
WP:PLOT
WP:NOTPLOT
WP:RAWDATA
WP:WHIM
See also: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate info
rmation
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations r
eferenced to independent sources. As explained in ?Encyclopedic content above, me
rely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suita
ble for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:
Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclope
dic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in additi
on to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wiki
pedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) ?Plot summaries. Similarly, article
s on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, r
eligious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the
works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage.
Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about a
uthorship, 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 aft
er 1922 are protected by copyright, and any quotation of them must be kept to a
minimum, and used for the purpose of direct commentary or to illustrate some asp
ect of the style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the site
linked to clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not inc
lude the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.

Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may

be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of the articles
. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statis
tics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases w
here this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United Stat
es presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readabilit
y of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article Unite
d States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summ
arize any necessary data concisely.
Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-publ
ished or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe
the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied w
ith regard to the level of detail to be included.
Wikipedia is not censored
Policy shortcuts:
WP:CENSOR
WP:CENSORED
WP:UNCENSORED
WP:NOTCENSORED
The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is e
ngaged 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 th
ese views.
Clark Kerr
Main page: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer
See also: Censorship of Wikipedia
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offens
ive ??even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be a
cceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, i
s incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especiall
y those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws
of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, since most edits are
displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a t
ime, before being detected and removed.
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic
but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionabl
e content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether
it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" i
s generally not sufficient grounds for the removal or inclusion of content. The
Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to ta
ke in the case of content that may be considered offensive.
Wikipedia will not remove information or images concerning an organization merel
y because that organization's rules or traditions forbid display of such informa
tion online. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is n
ot a member of the organization.
Community
The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following policies apply t
o Wikipedia's governance and processes.
Wikipedia is not an anarchy

Main page: Wikipedia:Administration

Policy shortcuts:
WP:NOTANARCHY
WP:NOTFREESPEECH
WP:CHAOS
See also: m:Power structure, WP:User access levels and WP:Enforcement
Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they i
nterfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum fo
r unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing pr
oject does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of
anarchist communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the
limits of anarchism.
Wikipedia is not a democracy
Policy shortcuts:
WP:DEM
WP:DEMOCRACY
WP:NOT#DEM
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
WP:WIKINOTVOTE
See also: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its p
rimary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution i
s editing and discussion leading to consensus not voting. (Voting is used for cert
ain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometim
es used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than fost
er, discussion and should be used with caution.
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
Policy shortcuts:
WP:BURO
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY
WP:NOTBUREAU
WP:NOTLAW
WP:NOTSTATUTE
WP:NOTCOURT
See also: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
"WP:BURO" redirects here. For the "bureaucrat" user access level, see WP:CRAT.
While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy,[5] it is not governed by sta
tute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the comm
unity. Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not
set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensu
s regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.
While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, the
y can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of
policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly
prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are res
olved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and p
rocedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to ref
lect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting th

at proposal or request.
A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not grounds
for reverting it, unless the error cannot easily be fixed.
Wikipedia is not a battleground
Policy shortcuts:
WP:BATTLEGROUND
WP:NOTBATTLE
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
WP:NOTFACTIONS
WP:BATTLE
See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:Edit warring
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on id
eological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battle
s 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 changes to content or policies, and do not disrupt W
ikipedia to illustrate a point.
Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit
of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a
disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite dis
cussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting mann
er, 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 th
e inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point o
ut gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it c
lear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict cont
inues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. T
here 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 Wiki
pedia especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with w
homever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrup
t) 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 pr
inciples of agreement between different viewpoints.
Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedia
ns, or the Wikimedia Foundation other means already exist to communicate legal pro
blems.[6] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.
Wikipedia is not compulsory
Policy shortcuts:
WP:CHOICE
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY
WP:NOTREQUIRED
WP:REQUIRED
See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service
Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give

any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia its
elf, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take
a break or leave Wikipedia at any time.
And finally
Policy shortcuts:
WP:BADIDEA
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive
Notes