Uncyclopedia:Complete Bollocks

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Blue check.svg
This page is considered an ignorable policy on Uncyclopedia.

It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow, unless they don't want to, in which case they are free to ignore it, in which case nobody will care. Please make use of the standing on one knee position to propose to this policy.

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
This article may contain one or more inaccuracies or does not cite all of its sources. [citation needed]
The author(s) must promptly be executed. [go with it] Uncyclopedia contains no inaccuracies. [Saw it on the discovery channel]
This template may also be inaccurate. [big fat lie]

The policies of Uncyclopedia state that articles can be verifiable and stated from a neutral point of view. We are not arsed if they are not. This strongly implies that they may or may not also be true. Sometimes articles arrive at Articles for deletion which have only the most tenuous connection to reality: they are, to use a British term, Complete Bollocks. This is not always a bad thing.

Giveaway signs of complete bollocks are phrases such as (article name) is a city in Norway and xxx is a complete idiot. This is an indicator that even more bollocks should be inserted into the article.

However, some complete bollocks is not wanted. Articles puffing non-notable websites are often complete bollocks, in that they make wholly spurious claims to notability (e.g. claiming to have originated some new process, neologism or phenomenon which is either not verifiably existent or, conversely, blindingly obvious). These articles very often start with the name of the site, properly capitalised, as a weblink. Whereas George's Law posits incorrect capitalisation as a hallmark of vanity in biographies, abundant capitalisation and/or trademark signs (sometimes weblinked at every single instance) is often a hallmark of complete bollocks in articles about websites. Exceptions to this rule, however, exist. Admins may allow a complete bollocks article if they think it is funny enough and does not have any references to Oscar Wilde or Chronarion.

A confirmatory sign of complete bollocks is a set of circular articles, or a self-contained nest of articles, such as three articles that only reference each other and are themselves composed of nonsense, particularly if the set is started by one author or a set of authors (or IP addresses) who all contribute to the same set of articles. In wiki parlance this is a crud/spam bomb. These are, however, rare, as the propogator of the bollocks usually gets bored and boogers off after creating, or is banned for all eternity by predatory admins.

Probably the most prolific source of complete bollocks is the bored student fraternity. As The Jee Man put it, Uncyclopedia is not for things made up in school one day. That is, unless it is funny and has substantial content.

There is no shortage of good ideas for bad articles, and some of them elevate themselves to the giddy heights of really good ideas for articles. It's this latter category which is likely to be complete bollocks.