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
flattened by a falling piano.
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 OR receive one critique via 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.
For. This is the first of a series of articles I will renomming under the new use of {{QFA}} as a second-chance for VFH. This one was um, kinda deserving (it had gotten 94% of the votes of the featured article at the time it was taken down). --<<>> 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
For I really liked this. Funny and never gets boring. The Oblong Lobster 14:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
For It's different, but it's definately very good. The Oblong Lobster 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Against Votes: 1
Against. This is partially because of the subject matter. These types of stories (fiction or real) become really boring really fast to me. It seems like it could be a parody of how drawn-out and complicated these stories can become. If it is, it needs more humor to pull it off (as well as possible elminiation of the Rivendell reference).--Mr.Vib 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
NomandFor - A great piece of work from TKF...has FRONT PAGE written all over it (not literally though) -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
For! Thanks for the nom Mhaille :) I was going to wait until the weekend to self-nom when Sannse finishes the final image, but this is good too. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
DIG!!!! Very very funny, I hope this one shoots on through. Great work TKF! --THINKER 21:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Dig this is an article I was planning on helping to birth into glory. Its still a bit rough, so if it doesn't make it this time, I'll put those edits into effect. Still hilarious, and still a fine example of why THE is, to me, one of the funniest and most promising writers here at Un. --THINKER 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! self for --THE 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain This article has a lot of humor in it. However, the violence in it seems unnecessary and crude, and detracts from the article as a whole. In my opinion, of course. Didn't we have this not too long ago, too?-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Self-nom and for. Finally, the in-joke from Zork brought to article form. --AndorinKato 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Against Votes: 3
No thanks. . It's a one-line chuckler crammed into a (reasonably well written, if not particularly funny) full length article. --El Zoof 07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No Don't know what Zork is and didn't understand the article. The Oblong Lobster 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
For and comment to the againsters: are you crazy? THIS ARTICLE IS SUPPOSED TO BE YELLING AT YOUR FACE, SCUMMAGGOTS! -- herrdoktorneedsAV2[scream!] 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Against The whole thing is CAPS, how can I see? Vincent Pun 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Against Don't get me wrong but it being in all caps makes it harder to read, and thereby, takes away from its humour. But if the article isn't in all caps, it doesn't make sense and not funny at all. It is quite the paradox. --Dexter111344 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Having this on the front page is a long shot away from having even Ct. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Against. I was thinking about voting for it, but You TEH GEY gave me a rash. Sorry. ~ 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Against - I love the idea (like most of So So's articles), but the execution isn't great. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Against. Not hard to read, but not particularly funny. Maybe with audio? I dunno. --El Zoof 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Abs. Funny, but wears thin early. I think it could be 20x funnier if a different approach was taken. --THINKER 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain. I REALLY want to vote for this since the execution is the right way to do it. However, it's just too full-force the entire time.--Mr.Vib 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Tweaked as of 1230. --So So 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Nom+Dig I found this article hilarious before doing a minor touch-up and adding the right pic and caption. I found it even funnier with the shaking space shuttle, and after rereading, yes. Its hilarious and even funnier. Simultaneously. --THINKER 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Self-Nom and For. Pee Reviewed and reviewed again after a complete rewrite. I know that it's difficult to read, but that's the only way I found to make it work. --Mr.Vib 11:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
For. I really like the tone and flow. The plot devices are terrific and I really dig the multilayered, multidimensional themes and story lines thought out the article. Greetings from a fellow Pathological liar.-- Vosnul 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The humour is unsubtle at best and all the crossing out is annoying. --Kelpan 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Against. I've read it three times now and...I like the idea, but the execution makes blood come out of my ears (which is a nice change, admittedly, but still). SirModusoperandiBoinc! 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Just created a reskin related to this article, located here. Add or improve to it if needed. --GeneralInsineratehymn 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
For: As someone who liked the original game, the sportsdesk picture really sells it, and the article itself delivers it. I, for one, welcome our Norse overlords. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 08:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Against I like the concept, but there are changes that need to be made. With such a random connection (video games Vikings turned newscasters), a better segue is needed. I'd help, as Kalir suggested, but I don't know anything about the game. Sorry bro. --THINKER 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Keep in mind, I've yet to get an article to featured status, so if you could provide good advice, you can get a hippie when you bring the article back down to earth. Also, I'll be thankful. And everyone loves a happy Kalir. ЖKalir, Crazy Indie Gamer(missile ponies for everyone!) 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Steve Johnsenson against wave (and its numerous references to feces) leads me to believe that little constructive input will be offered. --THINKER 05:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have concluded that the conclusion needs to be more effectively concluded, otherwise voters will conclude that an Against vote is needed to conclude this VFH section. So, yeah, I beefed up the end. ЖKalir, Crazy Indie Gamer(missile ponies for everyone!) 19:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
My issue is more with the leap from being vikings, to being vikings at the super bowl, to being viking behind a newscasters desk. The intro is like 4 sentences; for people who don't know whats up, well... they wont know whats up now will they? --THINKER 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd help, as Kalir suggested, but I don't know anything about the game. Sorry bro. I'm not equipped for such a task. --THINKER 01:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
to be honest, articles that have had little contributions don't deserve a place here, but there's an odd exception, so for --» >UF|TLK|▋» 04:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Marginal Against. I like the idea because I could see some schmuck here doing this. This is a type of article that has needed to be on here for a while, ESPECIALLY with the heavy mix of American and British users. However, I didn't think the humor (since it's American) was consistent. The references to the Queen/Paris Hilton comparison and the dentist picture were funny, but the terms references became old after a few paragraphs. I also wish there had been more jokes along the lines of the "old people slipping in piss" one.--Mr.Vib 19:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Dig Keep your tusks away from the goods, mastodon.. --THINKER 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
For Finally I know what's happening when I wake up with a giant dead mackeral on my head. I guess I should apologize to my brother . . . -SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe this is due lack of Ritalin but it made me lose attention after I bumped into the first anachronism (Windows). -- herrdoktorneedsAV2[scream!] 20:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
For...All right, Brad: after a day or two of letting this percolate in voting, I've concluded this is better than most.--Sir Shandon 10:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
For- Not sure why I like this show but I do so yeah....--Dr. Fenwick 22:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Iffy Against While it's funny, it's mainly a quote and lacks any sort of mock tone that would put it over the top for me. Call me crazy. Sorry.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Against per Mr. Vib --THINKER 01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Okay, okay, I fleshed out the text and dropped the "this reporter" bit. I didn't wanna, but I am bowing to peer pressure for the greater good of Uncyclopedia. Jeez, the things I do for this website... SirModusoperandiBoinc! 02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Self-for. I've been working on this on and off for almost two months now, and I'm flattered to see that it was nominated so quickly! --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
For. All praises to anime, although I got the feeling the idea was somehow stolen from me... --The Dit 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
-- 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
For. Very clever. --AndorinKato 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
For I've seen the article before, and trust me, this is a vast improvement. I think it should get a full protect after (if) is gets to the front page though. ЖKalir, Crazy Indie Gamer(missile ponies for everyone!) 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Very for, especially with the choice of chemical formula. --Imber 18:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong For. This is an amazing improvement over the original article. Finally, one that doesn't say anime fans are [insert insult here]. That in itself deserves a feature, if even just to keep it that way. I really do like the chemistry, though, very original! -- TheSlyFox 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For. Nice work chaps. His Grace, the Duke 11:37, May 24 2007 (BST)
every time this article has come back from being nuked it has sucked. this is an exception, in fact, it is very good, so for --» >UF|TLK|▋» 03:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Very For: Funny, irreverent, goes in a direction you don't expect it to, and isn't either "omg anime r00lz u all" or "omg anime sux0rz u suk". The sort of thing you could confuse with a "real" article for a few minutes. Excellent indeed. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
For Brilliant idea! Ethereal 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Against Votes: 5
Excrement-I tasted bile in the back of my throat --Steve Johnsenson 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Nom & For - Made me laugh, definitely a quality article... not to mention the highly unique writing style -- Prof. OliproKUN(W)AnchorOpBur. (Harass) 02:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please. --GeneralInsineratehymn 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
For - Blah blah blah - It's gneomI 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
--L 07:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Definitely worth it! Very funny. --JewBoy 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
For. Remembers me of the last chapter of "Everything you blahblah about sex blahblah afraid to ask". -- herrdoktorneedsAV2[scream!] 20:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
A spunky attempt at a subject matter that could be a real handful. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
For. Well, what the hell did you expect? I merely laid the corpse out on the slab, it was Cap'n Ben who attached the electrodes and sent it lumbering towards the Village People. --El Zoof 05:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
For It should be featured without a doubt. Kip the Dip 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god, this is brilliant. For. --Emmzee 13:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Dig very good stuff --THINKER 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
EAT THAT! - I would say yes. The Oblong Lobster 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going to nominate it myself around Valentine's Day, but if y'all think it's ready now, okay. Kip the Dip 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Would be perfect for Valentine's Day. But that's a while off.The Oblong Lobster 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I had originally intended it to be released before Valentine's Day in the hope that it got picked up as front-page material for that day... but then I got stuck and ran away and hid from the article. Thanks once again to Cap'n Ben for rescuing it. --El Zoof 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the admins should put this article on hold after the vote and then feature it on Valentine's Frankenstein's Day? Kip the Dip 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Still for, although most of it is over my head. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak for. It's hilarious, I laughed out loud at "Ug no able record CSI: Miami," but it's a little too short... but funny enough to compensate. --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Against Lovely article, but I think MO's article did the caveman thing better. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.011:23, 14 May 2007
nope, nope, nope. not funny, semi-duplicate article and vote-whoring on irc is a great way to seal your fate. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 03:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* I'm sorry. Against. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 22:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Abstain because I think that two caveman themed articles so near each other is uncool. Really good though. Will renom at an unspecified date.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, it's just my rationale for abstinence. Not attempting to convince anyone one way or the other. And plus, why knowingly get added to something with worst in the title.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Just vote already. Gol-dang kids with your highfalootin' words like "rationale" and "or". Pah! SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
For I've been watching this article since way before the vfd, it's completely different now and I think it's finally pretty good. – (ooh!)(aah!)...·º•ø®@»LEGCUNGUNDUN 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
For Splendid.--Dr. Fenwick 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is strangely assembled from four parts, however, when you press refresh theres a new fortune! its the only good part of the old article. cept maybe "how to be hysterical." LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Against. Unsuccessfully straddles the line between quasi-historical and somethingelse. It might work better to pick one and run with it. Run! SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
I'm gonna think on my vote for a while. I've been pretty ruthless tonight thus far, and the turn around in this article from its stint on VFD (which can't have been much more than a week ago) is enormous, but sadly it still fails to hit that secret spot for me. The funny spot, not the other one...pervert!~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.008:30, 13 May 2007
Not this version of it no. Extensive work has been done to it since it was on VFD. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.012:32, 14 May 2007
Aw is it like that? Didn't do too bad, and the comparison is pretty steep.. The cookie is cool? Who can say... But, Leatherbound hasn't answered my call for Ups or downs, so whatev... :) --THINKER 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I've voted for plenty of good quality articles. Just the recent batch don't quite hit the mark for me. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.011:17, 13 May 2007
Well, considering I put it up for VFD because it was under the wrong name and was a completely different and terrible article, think of them as seperate entities. (Do it for the random fortune fortune cookie, if only the random fortune fortune cookie) LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 13:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Nominating and for. Nice rewrite by Nakedman. Notice that this article is not random at all: it's perfectly coherent with its title and draws its humor for what it doesn't deliver. Ignoring the band is a very ironic comment on its real relevance. -- herrdoktorneedsAV2[scream!] 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
For - never in a million years did I think I would vote for an emo band article. This isn't an emo band article, though, so I'll still stand by that. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Holy Freaking Crap Mega-Strong For With Chocolate!!! That was awesome! (Although it does make me wonder if the whole "chemistry article" thing is becoming a fad.) </votewhoring> --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
For. Brilliant!! Takes a great idea and runs with it. Brianrein 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Nah not feelin' this one. Sorry doc. --THINKER 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No. I get the reference to the band, but it still lacks something with the night of passion. I was expecting something more with the "corosive acid" angle.--Mr.Vib 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Against I don't get the article. Really, I don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byGuymandude (talk • contribs)
strong against Not even a glimpse of humor --Steve Johnsenson 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak against: Great idea, but could be expanded. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Abstain. I was going to vote Against. Then I read the talk page & thought the talk page was more funny than the article. Then I read the article again. Maybe I'll vote For if it gets another appropriate picture or something to grab the reader a bit better.--Sir Shandon 10:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried to lighten it up a bit with a new image. Check it out. -- herrdoktorneedsAV2[scream!] 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that image improved it by, like, a thousand times. --Nakedman 12:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain. I expected loads of reverences to Die Chymische Hochzeit Des Christiani Rosenkreutz. Now that would have made some some serious Hardcore Smartassery.--Vosnul 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
For, because it eases my conscience over all those hours spent logging and then burning stuff just for the hell of it. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
For I like the irony. Ethereal 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
for in school today, some idiots use the day after tomorrow as a reference for their presentation on global warming. what the fuck? the experience makes this all too funny in the saddest of ways. LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
For. This is probably the only article on UnC about "future events" which is actually funny and not about Chuck Norris becoming a cyborg president in 3813 AD. --Nakedman 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Against Votes: 3
It's not worthy! It's not worthy! --Steve Johnsenson 05:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Against I liked it, but I don't think it is feature-worthy. --Dexter111344 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Dantoller has voted against this because I nominated an article of his for deletion. I don't think his vote should count.Rogpyvbc 18:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for changing your vote, Dantoller. But I don't think I can accept a for vote for the wrong reasons either, so I've removed your vote altogether. Rogpyvbc 17:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)