Vote counts on VFH have been dangerously low. Please spend some time reading and voting on nommed articles.
Please don't raise the number of nommed articles above 25 for now.
If there are fewer than 25 nommed articles, check Uncyclopedia:Best of as well as here, here and here for potential nominees that have not yet been featured. Thanks!
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.
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).
VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
NEW VOTE SYSTEM TRYOUT: We're trying out a new way to vote. See template:Vote for instructions, and leave comments at Forum:Template:Vote.
Self-nom and for- I'm going to apologize herein for coming close to the threshold of human uncyclopedian allowance for VFH noms, but this is another article I contributed. Fared quite well on Pee Review (45 out of 50, can be found here) and was wondering if this one was ready for front page-dom.--SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
.Nom and for. It worths all of the time it took Mordillo to complete. A crazy piece of rolling-on-the-ground-style humor. Mel Brooks shall be proud. -- herrdoktorneedsAshuttle[scream!] 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Macho as hell but, I believe, true to the facts. I don't like self-nominations but I want to give this a try. -- herrdoktorneedsAshuttle[scream!] 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A brief and professional article about one of the faces of evil in the 19th century. Happy Weasel 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
For Votes: 12
for- It is really a pretty damn good and short biography. Or it could just be me. I have been expirencing sympathy hot flashes of late for my pregnant wife. Happy Weasel 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
For Speed lynching and werewolves, who could want more! --EA Ruin Everything 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
For, but it's really early in the morning and I can't think of a witty comment. Something will come to me, I'm sure. Eventually. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 12:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
For...I like it--Sir Shandon 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
For. Uncyclopedia: funny and educational. Between this and Martin Van Buren, I've learnt more about 19th Century American history on this site than anywhere else. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
For Let's get this featured quickly, before people forget who Yeltsin was. --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 07:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Da. Russian leaders are always entertaining and Yeltsin was one of the best. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
For I'll take a celebratory swig of vodka if this gets featured. --Composure1 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong 60 alcoholic degrees straight for. A great epitaph for a great leader. Makes me want to sing the balalaika. -- herrdoktorneedsAshuttle[scream!] 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Self-nom This article was kicked, spit upon and treated like an outcast on pee review. Then I changed one word and it all made sense... --So So 13:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
For. But, OMG, change the title. Emo is killing it! Killing it! Putting emo in something is pigeonholing that very something. Try a synonym for depressed. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't vote for it, I just nommed it, so I erased the vote someone put there. --So So 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Modusoperandi. I had major reservations about using that word as well, so I will change the title once again. (Sorry admins) --So So 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. I'm glad someone said something. I hated that title too. --So So 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could help. Remember this when I ask for a kidney. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nom + DIG I know were not supposed to be flooding VFH or anything, which I totally respect, so I offer this spot-on effort. It knows exactly what it's doing. (20 isn't too close, right?) --THINKER 09:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I came up with the original Dane Cook article, and it sucked. So, I let everyone else fix it. Now seeing how good it is, I just have to vote for it. --Stealthy 9:24, 23 April 2007 (CST)
Self Nom& For--Dr. Fenwick 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Dig after I fixed that bitch right the hell up. Grammar man, grammar! ;) --THINKER 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
For. Here I am. On the road again. Trying to fix that's what she said so it gets voted for more. When it comes, back, I expect retribution. Of course I don't not. Anyway, good luck.--SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Against I'm with MO on this one. I've done a lot of edits to it (pre-move I think as its gone from the history) in terms of spelling/grammar etc but it fails to make me chortle. Ceridwyntalk contribs arc2.004:50, 24 April 2007
Against Half of it's funny and half of it's really not. Matt lobster 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Against It's a funny concept and it has some good jokes, but I don't know if its consistant enough throughout to be featured just yet. -- The Turd From The Golden StateWEST END MASSIVETalk to me SLAVE!! 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Last time this got I believe four for votes and zero against so everyone who voted for this would you mind doing it again hopefully I get some more positive votes. Also on another note this article was recently taken off becasue it was said to be illegitmate because it hadn't been on Pee Review for a wekk and it was a self-nomiantion but it has this has just been redirected toa more interesting title.--Dr. Fenwick 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It actually WASN'T redirected, but instead copied and pasted, but I'll kill the new one and move the old one to it.--<<>> 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and sorry about that whole mess on your talk page --THINKER 07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, after waking up to find that my edits were in fact not there (I must not have hit save page, or something might've happened in the move, idk), I can now say that I have accurately recreated said edits. All good from here, I'm not talking any longer.. nope, no more talkie.. :) --THINKER 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wellt hanks dude, not for shuting up but for adding your stuff to the article I really like it as it really helps the work can't thank you enough.--Dr. Fenwick 03:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Self Nom and For. Winner of Best Article by a Noob on the last PLS, and the last time it was nommed (by Braydie) it got to 14 For votes and no Against votes. --Sir OCdtJedraventCUNUmPVFHPLSACSWH 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For Too British. /me adjust monocle. Or duocle in this case. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 18:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For. That Simon kid was wiggidy whack. --ЖWHEEEEE! 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
once upon a time, there was a stupid english unit about this book that went around in circles, then I found this and laughed quite a bit. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
old article by me renommed. I must vote for.---Rev. Isra(talk) 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I love the picture in the begining, and the character description. The plot description is shit, but it gets saved by themes. This one needs work in the middle, but I thought it was okay. FOR --Serq fet 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
For, although could have sworn that Todd Lyons wrote this. Regardless, this is great quality article that satirizes Fox News in a way that hasn't been overdone. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For, the pics are mint and the writing is quality even if it's funnier if you've read Nobody cares. -- HindleyiteConverse 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I care about this article enough to vote for. --Emmzee 13:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Against Votes: 1
Naah. -L 04:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
You guys don't want me back, do you? I should think that would be the height of recklessness. Anyway, thanks! (I always thought this was one of my better efforts, actually.) c • > •cunwapquc? 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be here. Obviously. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
For Votes: 14
You know when you search for something and stumble across something else? This is like that. But with zombies. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
For Nice, very nice.--Gaberou 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Dig I once loved a cold-blooded she-zombie.. Not that far back though, I'm not an old person.. --THINKER 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong for before I even read the article. The name of the article is just priceless. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Rawr says the author (you have no idea how well-researched this article is...)--Sir Shandon 22:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
4 AErm how do you vote agian? Oh yes, there, now i wonder if my sig still works Sir NeoZidane • CUN • talk, oh fuck, some crappy purple one
For Holy crap - DiZ WROTE THIS? No offense, but I would never expect a work of such pure awesomeness from him. Great job, exceeds all expectations. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice up to the cold, bitter end, though I do hope this is towards the end of the "LOLz at Socialism" series; they aren't all written like this. --THINKER 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this was something stupid I thought up one day in college after seeing a red link. REALLY stupid. Then I expanded it a little and added the Pope and pigeon with road map pictures after ICU with an account I made on the spot, but it was still stupid. Braydie made it into all kinds of awesome - check the edit history. So it wasn't just justifying the pictures, I just made a shitty article which Braydie rewrote and he should eat your brains now. Precious, precious brains. 80.42.24.244 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Good ol' rock. Nothin' beats that." First to locate the exact Simpsons episode with that quote gets a cookie. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 05:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak against, which is a fancy way of saying indecisiveness personified. But I have to say that, since it's not stellar, it's a no. Sorry.--SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 00:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Against. What's there is okay, but there's not enough meat on those bones. Also, there aren't enough bones. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Against- It's almost there, but kinda drab. Realdeal 55 04:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Squiggle - It's from the episode where Bart and Lisa write Itchy and Scratchy scripts and get Grandpa to front for them. Now where's my cookie? --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 07:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)