*'''For''' Featured Article is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet. But this article is. Well done! --[[User:Kenvalyi|Kenvalyi]] 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' Featured Article is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet. But this article is. Well done! --[[User:Kenvalyi|Kenvalyi]] 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
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).
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.
Weak Against it's a good concept, but the images suck and it needs general cleanup.--Yoshi-TRM 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
it's good, but the writing needs a fair amount of tidying before this'll feature - jack mort |cunt| talk - 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Self nom im still a newbie, if i am not alloud to vote for myself, go ahead and remove this, because i'm just a an innocent teenager! how would i know better?? teehee--Reubnick 00:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Against: Clever concept, but poor implementation. -- Rei 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For This is the greatest article ever to be conceived on Uncyclopedia. It needs to be featured. --GeneralInsineratehymn 01:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
For: this can get featured, but the Hitler article can't?! --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is appealing to the american amongst us. simple as fuck. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOO--MikeSouthgate 13:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
For all that is good and pure, or if you'd prefer, all that is evil and twisted, NO. This is the antithesis of what I would want in a FA. This would make me want to not go back to the main page until it was no longer there. -- Rei 23:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Against It's funny in a sick sort of way, but I don't think it's something for front page. --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For A grand old Fundlebuggy. It even got transwikied. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
for. superb. where is hardwick anyway - jack mort |cunt| talk - 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering that myself. One can of special brew too many. Woke up in a desert. Isn't that always the way? --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy - (Ring for service) 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom + For Quality of the purest and most classical kind. {{RabbiTechno 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)}}
For- A lot of hard work was put into this article. And funny.--Sir ClaudiusCUNVFH (carpe diem) 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
For. How about an illustration of a tachyon, though? Or maybe one of those weird squiggle-line diagrams of the sort produced by particle colliders? InfiniteMonkey 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
for. the oppening paragraph isn't great, i was gonna vote against, but after the table of contents it was suddenly really good - jack mort |cunt| talk - 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Self Nom + for Because Goats are Under-rated as an eco-transportation method. MikeSouthgate 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment and against Not sure, but I don't think I saw this on Pee Review. If I'm not mistaken I do believe it needs to spend a week on it, for it to be selected, if it is a self nom. --Shadowlost 04:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. This was indeed on pee review. I checked when it was nommed.--<<>> 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Against Though it was on pee review, it still needs some more jokes and cleanup. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 06:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
For with reservations Funny due to its absurdity, as are many things on Uncyclopedia. I've cleaned it a bit myself, corrected spellings and added some pics. If someone had the time to give it a proper re-write, I reckon it could be a good bit of work. {{88.96.190.46 18:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)}}
Nom + for Got the right mixture of twisted facts, stupid jokes and dark humour. Fairly short article, but got me laughing several times. {{RabbiTechno 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)}}
For. An unexpected twist on a story that made me cry a little as a kid (but in a manly, masculine way). --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For. I was thinking about how this'd go up for VFH soonish just yesterday. --ContestantCUN--VFHNotMBuzzCtrbs 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong for. Interestingly, the Charlotte's Web article has got a decent (but separate) gag. For the moment, the two will merely reference each other despite the seeming contradictions. — Lenoxus 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
For, because I must vote for my own articles, per regulations.--<<>> 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For, because I too must vote for my own articles, per regulations. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ...hey, this isn't mine!
For, because I too must vote for my own articles, per regulations. I can pass as Brad —Braydie 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Against, because I must vote against UnNews articles, per my beliefs. --ANIDNMENOSCWICZ 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. This vote violates the "Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded." rule. FU ANIDN —Braydie 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For, because I too must vote for my own articles, per regulations. unfortunately, I didn't write this, but it's still a for --ContestantCUN--VFHNotMBuzzCtrbs 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For Funny, and the pic in the article is one I uploaded. --Composure1 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For. Anything that publicises the plight of those poor astronauts is a good thing. How have I not heard anything about this before? Something must be done. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Against This article describes a true event. It does not hold up to the basic principles of uncyclopedia. 144.211.95.12 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
For. One of those articles for which I had to resist the urge based on its name alone. But the text itself delivers. --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
NOME AND FOR A great unrecognized article. Great humor, great pictures, The Article has it all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byBenny Goodman (talk • contribs)
Strong for. Tight, cute, and a good sense of humour. If it wasn't an article, you might want to date it. (P.S.: It's one of my forgotten children. So, back home by 10 or else). --SirToddGUNWotMMIUotMNotMMDAVFHAotMBur.AlBur.CMNSPC(talk) 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For more articles that are the right kind of self reference. Like this. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For I'm with Modusoperandi. A self referential article that's actually funny? I'll vote for that! --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 02:20, 6 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)
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)
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)
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)
Against - I don't see, why this article has to live from altered photos. I urge any real Mao-fan, who wants to see actual Mao pics to vote against this article. 144.211.95.12 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
For Featured Article is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet. But this article is. Well done! --Kenvalyi 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
For - quite edumacationalising. Pretty pictures, too. --El Zoof 11:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
For. - I like this article WEEEEEEEEEEVan Halenite
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)