Uncyclopedia:VFH/Topaz

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Topaz (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Topaz	Score: 14 less than vital, yet still interesting facts regarding the nature of topaz
Nominated by:
For: 17	Nomination and a vote for. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 20:07, Oct 25 For. Clever! Andorin Kato 20:15, October 25, 2009 (UTC) For. I likes it. • FreddThe Redd • • • 20:42, October 25, 2009 (UTC) It's NOT sentient! Cheers for the nom. -RAHB 01:31, October 26, 2009 (UTC) For. Fuck yeah, conservation of mass. -- monika 01:51, October 26, 2009 (UTC) DIG How could topaz snub jazz-fusion?! Oh right...it's topaz... --THINKER 06:25, October 26, 2009 (UTC) Topaz pride! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 08:04, Oct 26 2009 For. ChiefjusticeDS 10:53, October 26, 2009 (UTC) Yesh! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:32, 26 October 2009 For. -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 17:57, Oct 26 For. --Docile hippopotamus 09:08, October 27, 2009 (UTC) Weak For. Along the lines of what the DJ said, but less negative. Also, another picture would have been nice, I guess. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 16:04, October 27, 2009 (UTC) For. But please, it does need another pic. --William Topaz McGonagall 12:18, October 28, 2009 (UTC) Weak For Nothing REALLY great, but OK. Ptok-BentonicznyTalk to Pole 19:58, October 28, 2009 (UTC) for. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:06, October 28, 2009 (UTC) For. Where the Wild Colins Are - LET THE WILD RUMPUS START! 07:40, October 29, 2009 (UTC) For. Made me laugh enough for a yes. Not a glowing endorsement, I know, but topaz doesn't glow. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 08:19, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Against: 3	Weak against Eh, the whole concept exhausted itself by about midway through. At least in terms of laughs. Felt like a less funny Slate industry in Wales. This is all personal opinion though, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the article. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 03:40, October 27, 2009 (UTC) I don't think it works repeating the subject title in the article. It sort of gets on your nerves for no real comic return in my view. Trim or cut those out and then it might work a lot better. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 19:26, October 27, 2009 (UTC) Weak against. I enjoyed the article at first, but it became repetitive for me as I read on, and by the "Topaz mining" section much of it didn't seem funny to me. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 22:01, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
Comments	Correction. The Atheliamwe people do have nipples, but they are inverted and flesh toned, and thus do not qualify under most nation's obscenity laws, but do under most nation's laws of biology. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 18:28, October 26, 2009 (UTC) BOOM! -RAHB 01:32, October 27, 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Now I understand why Barbie and Ken are the way they are. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 01:39, October 27, 2009 (UTC) Exactly! -RAHB 01:54, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Click to feature this article

Always check the feature queue first.

Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article. Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.