<span style="color:red">VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE.</span> If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to [[Uncyclopedia:Pee Review]].</big>
<span style="color:red">VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE.</span> If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to [[Uncyclopedia:Pee Review]].</big>
<!-- New entries go on TOP! TOOOOP!!! -->
<!-- New entries go on TOP! TOOOOP!!! -->
+
+
==[[Captain's log]]==
+
{{S| +1 Phaser of smiting}}
+
*'''NOME AND FOR''' A great unrecognized article. Great humor, great pictures, '''The Article''' has it all.
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
put in the dryer.
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 - Why hasn't this been featured yet!? Capercorn 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Against: I ignore that page and pretend it doesn't exist. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 08:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
against we definitely need an article on Wilde, but this needs heavy condensing before it'll feature - jack mort |cunt| talk - 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Against Given that the tax office is such an easy target for satire, I'd expect much better than this uninspired rant. --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 06:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Against. While, as someone who pays a bunch of income tax, I feel your pain, I'm siding with Cap'n Ben on this one. There are some funny bits, but a rant about the IRS is too easy.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 06:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Against. Prior to reading this, I had never considered that the IRS would have detractors, but I guess there's no pleasing some people. Wait, they take your money? Oh. That's got to be illegal. — Lenoxus 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Self-nom and for. Got a mention on PLS, I'm fairly pleased with it. It also got 81 at pee review but that hardly counts since it was me who scored it - jack mort |cunt| talk - 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Very weak against: almost. Seems a bit too choppy with rather short sections. Clean it up a bit, and you'll definitely have my vote. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 05:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Against. The beginning is pretty solid, it's the middle to end part that needs fleshing out.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 13:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom & For: I was a bit hesitant at first to nominate this, but I think it's an extremely historically accurate piece about Hitler. The randomness is gone (except for the melons part), and apart from being a bit lengthy, it's an excellent article in my book. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 08:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Against: as much as I think this is a good article, I think that such a topic ought to be done better. Hitler is a very prominent historical figure and the potential for humor is far greater than this article achieves.
For Pretty funny, close to the truth too, well except the part about women owning men but this is uncyclopedia so not everything has to be true lol --Uncle J 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Against, I don't find it funny, only true. --The Rover 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Against until some gal writes Girl Code or some equivalent. Otherwise, Uncyc remains a gentlemen's club (i.e, sausage fest). — Lenoxus 07:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom and for. It's time again for the yearly ritual of Ford vs. Holden... right next to my home. Damn! -- Colonel Schwertfechter (2005-2006) 03:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For. High-tech cars and beer. The techness of the beer is immaterial.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Self nom & for I think this is pretty funny, but I can't get anyone to confirm or deny this. I'll take my chances. --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 08:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Re-Nom and for. The best thing I've taken off VFH in a while. This article definitely deserves another chance.--<<>> 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Against. this was only removed from vfh two goddamn days ago, my vote hasn't changed in that time - jack mort |cunt| talk - 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The article has, however, if only slightly.--<<>> 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow....and I was just about to vote for this....FORE! -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if the little boy had a bit of quiet time before being rush back for judgement here, he might be able to examine why he didn't make it last time against. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Originally Nomed and Strong For -- Awesome article but you could have waited a bit longer to put in back on VFH, why did you take it off in the first place instead of vote for it? --Uncle J 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Around Christmas, we had maybe a half-dozen articles that were removed, renommed, and then featured. I don't know why everyone's making such a huge deal about it right now. I didn't vote for the first time, because there was crap in it before. Now that crap is gone.--<<>> 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For It made my eyes well up.. in a very manly way. --Kenvalyi 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For Wow, it's here once again. Anyway, before voting Against please note that some crap has been taken out of this article since last time...-- 10:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
For, again --GAMESPOT=666 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For Hes crying like a bitch Weasel3689 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I Just checkd this page again and IT IS STILL NOT FEATURED! Look at the above timestamp and my below one!! I voted for the previousl featured version and the current nomination. FEATURE IT!!!! Weasel3689 18:30, 03 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, Against. The title is brilliant but the text, even with the changes, isn't keeping up.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Am changing of vote to For. Story is filled me with joy. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For - My first "style joke" article, and I believe it came out rather swimmingly. --Sir Judgement F@H UmP VFH {talk} 17:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an entry in an electronic registry affirming the quality of a licensed submission to a web site, known by certain laypersons as a vote for. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 18:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The man sat down in front of a square screen, with an unusual number of small buttons mounted beneath him, each with a letter of the Roman alphabet. Drawing himself up, he typed for.--Procopius 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Altough I'm ashamed to tell that I could not read it until the end, not that I am an unpolished working-class thug (yet still a sensible human being) and instead I may add the point regarding the article's prolixity, that is an writing style on itself but become somewhat unfashionable during the XX century when, by the way, all sensibilities become a little blunt, I'm afraid to tell. -- herrdoktorneedsAcorpse[scream!] 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For Such a DICKens- --DAME::FoxyBabe::TALK 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak for. For me, the test of a "style article," as Judgement put it, has been to know how and when to plant a different kind of humor. There's not that much of that in this article, but it's funny nonetheless. --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom, and a vote for. Really well written news article that is funny without having to mention kittens or grues etc.--Benny Goodman 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I tried to buy a Wii. After failing to locate one at any local store, I was reduced to wandering the streets yelling "Wii!". Send bail money. Fast. Bubba's got this look in his eye. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Against It's funny, but a lot more could be done with it besides the "breaking pots" angle. Throw in some chicken abuse, lawn defacement, etc. and I'll gladly remove my Against. —rc(t) 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For- I can't believe no one has thought of this already lol --Uncle J 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That was unintentional... I hadn't read that article. Though it is interesting that I happened to write it within a close vicinity of time after. I never intend to plagiarize, I'm not a Carlos Mencia. I attempt avoid that at all costs, and I actually did a bit of searching on here for any UnNews related to Link/Zelda to make sure it wasn't too similar to anything. I happened to miss the fact that the RPG article, which has conceptual similarities, could have any resemblance. - AhhDiddums 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Against Basicly the same as RC's comment, Do more then just breaking pots and I'll vote for it. Other then that very good.User:Iceman187 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Could someone make an informative notice or box for those of us not "in the know" regarding (if I properly recall the name) Zaldo the Elf? Kinda like the "Overly British/American" tags. I would do it but I don't really think I'm even knowledgable enough to know what to say — maybe some feature of the Hynian universe is begging to be incorporated into such a sign.— Lenoxus 05:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Self-Nom and For. This may struggle to get featured, due to its Britishness, but I really want to give it a go. In a nutshell, David Cameron is our leader of the opposition and has been often criticised for focusing on style over substance, most notably with his video blog: WebCameron. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I have no idea what it's talking about, but I liked it. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 23:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For. The Britishness isn't a problem at all. It seems like the same political bullshit thrown around in any democracy. Pretty good.--Procopius 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Against Ya I get what he is trying to say and I understand the struggle of labor vs. conservative in England but its too political and not enough funnyness (my patented word) Weasel3689 18:00 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For Britishness (or Britishocity) is no problem here, it's a very good satire on politicians trying to be hip in general. Very good article. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. It's good. --Zarbag 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is my first time voting Tory. I feel dirty. For. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Not that I'm a thatcherite or anything... not that I'm saying you can't *think* I'm a thatcherite, you can if you want - it's ok by me --OliproAnchorKUN (Harass) 12:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For I don't vote much, so this deserved it, prepare for launch.... (yes it's back, albeit in a shorter form) ...3...2...1...
For I was laughing by the end of the first paragraph. It may be focused on a UK politician, but it's also a satire on a variety of political types. Phantom Grammar 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Don't know who he is, don't need to know. Beautiful concept. --So So 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Against, sorry, I didn't find it that funny. He doesn't come off as sufficiently out of touch. How about using outdated youth terms like 'bodacious' or 'mad for it'?--Nydas 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I want to agree and at the same time I think that's been done to death. I just don't know... -- Lenoxus 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For This is the kind of warmth the government needs, you know? To connect, really connect with the people. -- Lenoxus 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For Clever satire, marvelously not saying anything across the whole article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added byThe Rover (talk • contribs) diff
Nom and For Fantastic, honorable mention at PLS. —Braydie 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
He's my friend when things get rough. THIS was my childhood people, thankfully it has had no lasting vegetable marrows. For. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Just like an acid trip, but without the flash backs. Iddy Bitty 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is based on and don't really want to know. All I can say is For. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for freakin' out man! Aah! Bugs on my skin, bugs on my skin! --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For ....hey is that a flute over there? - jack mort |cunt| talk - 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
PHOUR CUZ I ER SEW JAKKD UP RIET NIOW. I loved this show. Not really, but this article is nice. --love, gustavtalk at menope 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
N+F. Damnit, this is a great article and should have been featured in its last swing around VFH. Do right by Kwakerjak this time.--Procopius 01:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong ForKwakerjak was a visionary, and he got wasted by the system. We squeezed him for all the cheap laughs we could get and threw him in the trash. It was an injustice to make him a one-hit wonder with Napoleon Bonaparte. He hasn't contributed in a while, but dammit, he could have been one of the greats. Sorry for rambling, and maybe I wouldn't have cared at all if he hadn't added to my own French Revolution article in the first place, but Kwakerjak is one of our most underrated authors, and the least we can do is posthumously feature something of his. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak against. Reads too much like a newspaper column from the time — a very clever column, mind you, but not much else. I'm picturing the speaker as an engaging, personable history teacher sprinkling lectures with fun commentary like this; I'm not picturing Featured. Then again, that could definitely be my own vague bias against commentary... —Lenoxus 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For. Both mostly true AND hilarious. This is what I picture the best Uncyclopedia articles being.--<<>> 13:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong for I am flipping my Whig over this article! And that its written with a hint of newspaper style is part of its charm. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
weak against Although this article is good in many places, the history teacher Lenoxus is referring to must be biased in a way I didn't find funny. Is saying a candidate ran as a stupid redneck over and over that funny? --»His Majesty King George VI(the boxes) 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. What's funny is a party embracing that image, and getting the populace drunk enough to buy into it.--Procopius 02:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Not only that, but the article highlights the fact that this strategy, which anyone could easily see through, wasn't an isolated incident to this particular election. His cross-referencing other cases of the same ridiculous plan working throughout American history were what made this a gem.--<<>> 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Yeah... yeah... but... to me, that's kind of, I don't know, geekish. It's like an article discussing some strategy in World of Warcraft and repeatedly pointing out how the strategy shouldn't work but does anyway. It's like a decent standup routine, or lunch-break tale ("so then Harrison was all like, 'I'm a redneck, yo!' And man, you just know that one would slide."). As a basically liberal American, I'm all too used to the "redneck strategy" working; I'm way past the point where it's either funny or depressing in itself: it's just another tool, you know? grr... out of words... —Lenoxus 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For enough that, I have to admit, I'm a little turned on right now. I can't be the only one...I am? Oh. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
for. you're never alone modus. *jacks* - jack mort |cunt| talk - 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For -- the "look at me, I'm a redneck" line near the end clinched it for me. -- Rei 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For, although I'm still annoyed that he yelled at me after that whole Golden Calf thing. Zealous prick. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Wow, you know the site is good when a page this great only warrants an "honorable mention." --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Niiiiice. --El Zoof 06:30, 21 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. 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. It was a sad day for Porchesia, but perhaps by remembering them they can live on.John1728 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, thanks. Internet memes, vandalism apology, not factual but a little obvious. Sorry. -- herrdoktorneedsAcorpse[scream!] 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The last paragraph (not a Moridillo piece) sort of explains the joke and spoils it. Remove it and I'll vote for.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment agreed and removed, with my apologies to infinitemonkey. ~ 11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For. I laughed through the entire thing. (By the way, a false article deleted by a Wikipedia admin doesn't exactly count as a meme, does it?) --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 06:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For. /me bows my head honoring the people of Porchesia. ~ 11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna say yes for the same reason I felt compelled to edit it. Plus, the plight of the Porchesians must be heard! -- HindleyiteConverse 14:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
FOR Great work of investigative journalism. ((User:Ayatollah Gurkhmeini/sig}} 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I've unintentionally created a storm of confusion over the naming: First, I proposed a move to Porchesian Holocaust (where it is currently), then Flyingfeline went ahead with the move (which I didn't notice, not having updated the page in enough time), then I changed the move template to Porchesia, but this was removed by Flyingfeline out of an understandable exasperation. (I also changed my explanation for this on the talkpage, but have since moved that to Flyingfeline's talk after it got blanked (again understandably) in the middle of my editing. So... yeah. We'll all get through this, I'm sure. —Lenoxus 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You might as well vote for the bloody thing :) ~ 12:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess, but it's just that I'm, well, so anal... I mean, is this an article about the Holocaust or the country? It's brilliant either way, of course. Oh, screw it.-- Lenoxus 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For I'd better vote for it too. A shame that Porchesia became our own little Alderaan and that Danny was our Grand Moff Tarkin. Moff Danny, anyone? --チンドカ 11:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For despite the stupid name confusions. -- Lenoxus 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For I went there on vacation last summer. It wa*User Gamiac deleted, for reason "He never existed"*
For Really well written. It's funny that a non-existent country could slip through Wiki's nets for so long. --Benny Goodman 22:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For The part about no one will have dominance over another person unless asked to during a sexual act did it for me lol --Uncle J 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)