Vote for an article you find excellent. Please add new nominations on the top.
Initial nominations do not count as a vote For. Please use "Nomination and For" or some iteration thereof if you wish to vote for your nomination.
When voting For or Against, please change the score number accordingly—this saves a lot of time later.
IP votes carry half the weight of registered votes.
Nonsigned votes and votes without timestamps will be struck out, so make sure you sign your votes with ~~~~ or press the "your signature with timestamp" button () above the edit box.
When nominating an article, the template Template:VFH should be added to the end of the article using {{VFH}}. Anything you add {{VFH}} to also shows up in Category:Feature nomination.
Failed VFH nominations should only be archived/removed by the sysops who pay attention to this sort of thing.
Previous featured articles can be found on the archive pages.
Voters: don't be dicks and do be constructive with criticism. Writers: Don't be prima donnas. Be open to criticism.
Articles from all namespaces (including UnNews, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded.
If your article doesn't make it to the front page, don't despair. It may be eligible to be Quasi-featured so long as it meets certain criteria.
THIS IS A VOTE, NOT A DISCUSSION.
If you feel the need to whine or start flamewars please do it HERE.
Violators of this policy will be
infected with a computer virus.
Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * )
SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must spend at least one week on pee review before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time and require no review (though it is still recommended).
VANITY REGULATION: Articles that meet the criteria for vanity may not be nominated.
VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Nom and for Hah. This is seriously one of the funniest things I've EVER seen on this website. I lol'd for a good minute there. --love, gustavtalk at menope 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
For Great idea! For me, the concept alone is enough to merit a featured status. Brilliant HTML work, i'm scanning through the source code right now; this must've taken you a while,
Against Simply repeating the colors red and blue do not equal 3D, even with the glasses - just a head ache. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP•
Against Per Lady PP.--Procopius 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For. The article has great depth. -- Vosnul 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment — To really work, what this needs is a genuine overlap of the words, or at least of most of the picutes (like the Wikipedia one). Any way to do this without resorting to using nothing but images? —Lenoxus 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Against - Sorry but its a one trick pony. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
For, despite the fact that i could not read it because I have no 3-D glasses. --love, gustavtalk at menope 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
For Mae West would've contracted and died of AIDS had she lived past 1980. Sorry I didn't light your fire mhaille. --AmericanBastard 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For, although I am disappointed to see so many red links in a Procopius article. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Self-nom and For -- It's been Pee-Reviewed twice, both times with high praise, and I think it's as good as I can possibly make it by this point. I think it's ready for the big time. I hope thou art in agreement. -- #1_ALF_FAN 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For-The only complaint that I have right now is that it's too one-linery at times.--Yoshi-TRM 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For - Love it, though I agree with Yoshi-TRM. Funny, though! —The preceding unsigned comment was added bySmrt-guy (talk • contribs) dif
F☭R, 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For. You seem to be Windows compatible, though your beards suggest otherwise.--Procopius 15:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Against. I like the photos; I think the text needs more -- background? Mythology, maybe?--Procopius 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For I think it has chance as a favoraite. Seriously, It's just a hilarious idea of our president and others based on the justice league comic.--Imaginarykid2706:35 18 Febuary 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For I found this one especially tickled my funny bone. It has great images, lost of jokes, and a good concept. Looks good to me. --love, gustavtalk at menope 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For Utterly hilarious. God, I'm such a geek... -- Rei 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
F☭R, Even though it didn't tell me a damn thin' 'bout livin' in an RPG. 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
FOR, I wrote it a long time ago and decided to publish here in uncyclo' just to make some people laugh a little. I wasn't expecting a nomination. Thanks Gustavo! --DAME::FoxyBabe::TALK 12:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
For Great stuff...but really nerdy! Smrt-guy 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, nerdy stuff can be fun. I also make money writing game reviews for a website. Oh God, I'm a nerdy girl. --DAME::FoxyBabe::TALK 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For, even though I know nothing about video games that aren't Pro Evo Soccer. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For great justice! Wait, wrong genre. Um. Have I lost an eighth? --El Zoof 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For Really good.--Lt. Wyoming 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I remember when Ultima IV was cutting edge . . . sigh . . . but nice to know people still don't lock things in RPGs.--Procopius 15:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For Dancing mushrooms are funny. --Naughty Budgie 08:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Score: +10 damn times that Squiggle has gone and put a really, really long title on a page. I mean, really, it just goes on forever and ever...
Nom & For: I submit to you another PLS entry, winner in the "Best Illustrated Article" category, from Squiggle himself. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For, although I didn't just pee it for self nomination - I wanted it checked over after I saw RadX's review, which included this: "I think we have a winner in Captain Petey, though, as an article it's not fantastic." But yeah, the nomination is appreciated. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 03:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom & For: another PLS entry; winner in the "Best Article" category. Definitely deserves to make it on the front page. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For I voted for it in PLS, but the other judges were all, "Get out of our category!", so I was all, "Whatever!" I sure told them.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
ForFabulous idea, very well written --DAME::FoxyBabe::TALK 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For -- This article is coming down the home stretch, and the finish line's in sight! -- #1_ALF_FAN 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For. A thoroughly informative document, which will be of as much use as any other when the bombs fall. El Zoof 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
For a great satire on the pointlessness of nuclear war. Loved the line "We made it! Now it's just us and the cockroaches!" --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 05:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Oh freakin hell Wehpudicabok! I was gonna nom this...you know, eventually. --Anyone 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hell yeah. REALLY FUNNY.--Xzeta 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For. It reminds me of growing up in the 50's. Except I didn't grow up in the 50's. And I didn't grow up. What were we talking about?--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 04:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong for. This is why HF is Writer of the Year.--Procopius 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Self nom and for. I put a lot of hard work into this article, to make it look like a movie trailer. I think everybody will get the jokes. PF4Eva, the King of ImaginationtalkContributions 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I've been watching this one since it was started, and it's come a long way. <baritone>It will be featured.</baritone> Nice job, PF4Eva! --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 07:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Perhaps a few too many quotes in the way, but other than that, quite funny. ;) -- Rei 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Against. The only funny part was the Youtube vid. --So So 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
For Why would anyone want to stop playing the accordion? But it's a good article, because mostly it's about learning to play. Rogpyvbc 08:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (an accordion player)
For - perfect piece of misdirection. I like this a lot.--Nydas 12:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
For a masterstroke of literature, en par with Milton, Swift or some other drunken author of ages past. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
N+F - a simple joke, but worked out very thoroughly and nicely - David Gerard 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Up For. (and a quarter). BerogenVFH 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
For. Soon to be a TV movie starring Omar Sharif as Prisoner #426 and Ernest Borgnine as Dick Cheney. True story.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For PLS entry. —rc(t) 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
For What more can I say? What more can i say? What more can i do? I give this all to you. I know this much is true. My Life. --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Although I hate to be a pedant (that's a lie, I can't get enough of it), the English Civil War, preceded the Act of Union by 50-odd years, so "British" is wrong. I'll correct this unfortunate error. Great article though. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Good day, sir! If may say, you look like the type of fellow who would CENSORED a guy up the CENSORED while giving the courtesy of a reach around.--Procopius 15:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For My good man, do be so civil as to -- INCOMING!!! Up it goes! The Humbled Master 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For Wow, a good explanation for a big part of history. MoosePie 00:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak against -- Terribly sorry, but this just won't do. Not so much for the content as it is for the formatting. That can really make or break an article. Fix that, and I'll reconsider. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Didn't I vote for this before? Didn't I see that woman before? Wasn't this guy alive when I went to sleep?--Procopius 03:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This was one of my first articles, I think from Most Wanted...so obligatory For and e|m|c, you are free to change the formatting if you like--Shandon 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak for. Wonderful idea, and brilliantly written, but I've been hesitant to vote for it because it seems like there's more you can do with the idea (the same reason I didn't nom it when it was first written). I still think that, but I also think it's great as is. --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
For Gondor! --UtarEmpire 11:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
For -- Those are some top-notch funny images. -- Rei 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)