Welcome to the Uncyclopedia Votes for Highlight page. To nominate an article, type the name into the box below and follow the directions.
Vote for an article you find excellent.
Previous featured articles can be found in the VFH archive.
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, UnTunes, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded.
If a nomination disappears from this page, it is likely to be found in either the recently featured or recently failed nomination lists.
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.
Any and all violators of policy will be
catapulted away.
Nominate
Self-nomination regulation: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) no longer require a pee review. Pee Review is still highly recommended for newer users. Do not clog up VFH with poor quality self-nominated articles... or else.
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. Great article. The (intentionally) incorrect spelling makes it all the better. Take the line "they wont let me take my snappl on the plane becus they think its a bomb so a month ago wen i went on vacashun i said its a snappl ar yu so stupid its not a bomb," what's not to love about that? Mindnight64 18:52, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
A snappl is "snapple" spelled badly. Mindnight64 20:21, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
And Snapple is a beverage presumably not available in ScottPat's England. Spıke¬ 20:23 22-May-13
Against Votes: 3
Against. (1) This is a 2-year-old article about a 12-year-old event. (2) Vandalism-quality articles, even if that is the article's goal, ought not be our first (main-page) contact with new readers. (3) This article does a better job of calling attention to the author than making me laugh. If this is nominator's first exposure to "alternate viewpoint" articles, keep browsing the site: We have much better ones than this. Spıke¬ 19:48 22-May-13
Though I don't think the age of an article matters too much, your other points are good. Thanks for the feedback. Mindnight64 20:16, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
Conceded, but I see lots of good new stuff being written and favor it for featuring. Spıke¬ 20:23 22-May-13
Against. I'm dreadfully sorry but it's not encyclopedic enough and the title wouldn't be found on wikipedia. How about moving it to a HowTo article. Like HowTo:Teach 9/11 to a two year old? Sorry. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 20:09, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
Against. Reads more like an internet troll than a five year old. TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:07, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
This should be nommed closer to September 11th, to make it more timely. I think there are a few too many misspellings for this article to be very readable. We have featured articles that are not strictly "encyclopedic" before because they made up for it with humor, but I'm not sure that this article is there yet. It is a good article, but not sure it's featureworthy. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 20:21, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
I read this one before, and it's a fine feature. In high school I used to carry an Emu feather in my wallet. Aleister 12:24 16-5-'13
For. I said everything I wanted about this article in my review. It is simply great! However, I don't want to be annoying but, as I have already told you, Scott, there is one problem with the Churchill quote and you said you agreed with it... Anton (talk) 09:50, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
For. Very, very silly, yet still remains somewhat historically accurate. Awesome stuff --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:01, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
For. Those silly Australians. --Snippy 10:47, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
In the talk page of the Wikipedia article, there is the original military template that might be perfect for this :D --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:01, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Nom & For. Can't get worked up over yet another lampooning of a Christian? New user Axlman5 does it with brilliant writing. Spıke¬ 15:54 14-May-13
For A traditional take on the Christian religion. I shall vote for it as it is a good attack on Christianity and makes an athiest proud but I do wish it had a bit more original content in terms of humour. The amount of times I've heard the old "Why are there natural disasters if God is meant to be all-loving" and "If God is all-knowing and powerful how did he design such disfunctionate creatures who got themselves exiled from the Garden of Eden." (I know athiesm is a new concept for the US). The author is basically stating the truth but he does do it cleverly enough and makes us laugh at religion enough to pass. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 16:11, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
A page worthy of man's quest for immortality. Or quest to be a ghost. Aleister 12:22 16-5-'13
For. I once got in a fight with him. Or it was somebody else. The latter, probably. Anyway, can someone bail me out? SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:13, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Self-nom and For. To my spork of the Wikipedia article on the breakfast cereal, ScottPat prepended a twisted biography of Admiral Nelson oriented around Ships that Go Crunch in the Night; the article's history is now on its talk page. Spıke¬ 11:56 11-May-13
For. Very well done, both of you Captains of Funnery. And I could tell that Spike wrote some of it because.....he voted for it (we need votes on VFH's, for example, have you read my moon page?). Aleister 20:09 11-5-'13
But I got token bans during my "nom-and-abstain" phase. Nor can you tell from that; NTSB was a non-self-nom, and I have two more queued up once the authors are done. Spıke¬ 00:15 12-May-13
Against. Sorry. I don't think that this article should be featured. Too short for a novel, has too many mistakes (should be reread carefully) and finally has only one main joke (which I don't really like). Anton (talk) 05:55, May 14, 2013 (UTC)~
Thanks for the constructive criticism --ShabiDOO 18:53, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
Against. An "UnBook" about discomfited partygoers having to watch dogs humping should not greet newcomers on our main page. Do I have to say this? Shop it over at Yuky Doody Pedia. Spıke¬ 11:22 14-May-13
SPIKE you are such a dick. --ShabiDOO 18:52, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
Why do you criticize Spike and thank me? Spike also gave you constructive criticism. Anton (talk) 18:56, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
The thrill of the jump awaits your six-legged lame man. Jump, lame man, jump! If I had a piece of your country's money for every time I kicked a lame man in the ankle and ran away I'd own one of your banks. Aleister 19:11 3-5-'13
For. I very much liked the beginning and a bit less the middle because I liked the serious way in which you described nonsense (a parody on the stupid guides, encyclopedias, etc.). But, at the end, it became boring (nonsense sometimes does). You have only one humor point which is the "serious nonsense" (although this term doesn't exist). A good article, although I feel that it should be improved. Anton (talk) 13:40, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
AgainstI'm sorry Al but I didn't find this particularly humourus, only quite random. The concept seems too random to be encyclopedic and I struggle to find jokes that amuse me. I did like how you had to find three people and maime them to get the six legged man but the making them jump bit I don't find very funny. I therefore don't think it is ready or good enough to be featured. Add in some more jokes and maybe a bit more content. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH and Bar (talk) 09:48 23, May 2013
For. Although this article doesn't really look like other guides that you may see on Uncyclopedia, it is still one of the best HowTos I have ever read. Even at a closer look, when writing a Pee Review of the page, I couldn't find any important negative points. Very well done! Anton (talk) 18:48, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
With a little polishing and a couple of good additions this will be a fine feature. Or featurette, depending on the mood of the day. Aleister 12:56 29-4-'13
(Formerly Against.) I would vote for this once polished. Am voting against now on procedure: Author files it here, asserting that it is one of the website's best, and also on Pee Review, to find out if it is. Do not use VFH merely to get people to look at your work. 11:49 28-Apr-13 I still don't like the use of the first and second person (nor the entire HowTo: namespace). Spıke¬ 22:20 29-Apr-13
Shelf nom and floor Can man go to the moon? That's an age old question, and it may be answered in our lifetime. All I know is that it may be dusty up there, so bring a hat. (this page placed second in a Happy Monkey contest far far away) Thanks for reading, and thanks to the Minister for a very useful proofreading and to Shabidoo for a very juiceful pee review. Aleister 21:01 26-4-'13
Against. Too much swearing. Sorry, I cannot even finish reading it. When a writer swears, that means that he doesn't have enough words to express his thoughts. Anton (talk) 13:18, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
I couldnt disagree more. Strategic placement of the right sequence of bad words at the right time can strengthen character development in works as short as uncyclopedia articles, can enhance the absurdity of larger than life situations and make most readers laugh out loud. I think Ali did it mostly well in this article and I dont think there is any absence in skill, creativity or imagination in Alis writing, dirty words or not. --ShabiDOO 18:04, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Motherfucker Anton voted against this shit? Mother-FUCKER, Jesus Christ's cock boiling in motherfucking Pontius Pissing-on-Patty Pilate's kitchen, voted against it?? Mudder fucker. And what's with that motherfucker Shabidoo saying Anton should blow him but not in those many words, low-down greek stoned motherfucker! I'm outta here. Aleister mudderfucker!
p.s. The swearing was all in the first section. Did you go past that at all? Lots of stuff happens. A quiz for those who read it: Who wrote the original 2038 book?
Well, sorry but even if all the swearing is in the first section, I still don't think it should be featured. Other readers may think like me and won't be able to pass the first chapter even though it might be brilliant further. Anton (talk) 07:31, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I think you added just one too many swear words in the article that ruin the encyclopedic effect but apart from that it's great. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH and Bar (talk) 09:48 23, May 2013
Thanks for the vote (of confidence!). This is an UnBook, so it's not in the encyclopedic realm of the uncy. In the UnBook section of uncyclopedia you can write an entire fiction book if so inclined. Or a children's book. Or lost manuscipts from Crete. Aleister 11:10 4-5-'13
For. Impressive work, well written and full of knowledge of the subject. If I can't vote for this I can't vote for anything. Aleister 1:02 25-4-'13
For. I think it is a good article despite all the comments. Anton (talk) 10:04, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
No against votes
Comments
Comment. There are many missed opportunities here imho. i did laugh a couple times, I found most of the jokes are cliches that fall flat. instead of randomly narrating the antics of each country...the article could have an over all concept or clear purpose. if it must be a random article about psychopathic nations, then I think the atticle would benifit by sticking a few nations and taking the character of each country to higher level of comedic absurdity. At the very least I would argue that at least some of the ideas should last more than a paragraph. ShabiDOO 07:18, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
My take is similar. Section 1, on how each of the major nations cynically uses the EU to advance national goals, I regard as mostly true and about as funny as the 15 minutes of negotiations between moves in the game of Diplomacy. It's told jauntily, but some serious anti-federalists also tell things jauntily. Geopolitics and a joint stance vis-a-vis America are similar serious points. I don't claim that the author is advocating anything in particular, but it reads like advocacy. Spıke¬ 21:59 29-Apr-13
Replying to both comments above. The idea of the article was to tell the truth about the EU in an over-exaggerated way (as I do in many other articles). I will admit that there are many cliches in here and that it seems to be written from the point of view of a UKIP member. However I think these cliches are still very funny and many other articles have major cliches such as the William Lane Craig article which seems near to being featured so cliches seem to be appreciated on this site. The main point of the article is less to mock the organisation of the EU but more to mock the patriotic, nationalistic, imperial views that European countries are stereotypically said to have, especially the relationship between France and Britain. I also admit there is a niche humour range and that if you are not into Geo-political humour or Radio 4 style British comedy you probably would not find this too funny. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 10:27, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Spıke¬ 11:02 14-Apr-13 11:02, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
For Votes: 6
Self-nom and For. This old article has new sections on the thesis, dissertation, and honorary degrees; and copy-editing throughout. The long, ranty section on what wannabees doctoral candidates are and how their parents are living through them long ago got its own page, PhD student. Spıke¬ 11:02 14-Apr-13
For. I liked the article very much except for the "Other Ph. Ds" part. Anton (talk) 13:40, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Why? Solely because of the digression to pedophilia and penis head? I would not mind removing them. They, and Section 6, were in the draft I started from. Other voters? Spıke¬ 14:06 18-May-13
Yes, I think so. This joke is not connected to the topic and is only about interpretating Ph.D. in different (unusual) ways. But I found the part where you say that Ph.D. is a wrong abbreviation of Doctor of Philosophy very funny. So if you decide to remove this section, I advise you to keep that joke. Anton (talk) 14:28, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! The article is still long enough to be very funny and interesting. Anton (talk) 14:42, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
No against votes
Comments
Comment. i felt some of the jokes fell flat. if the jokes were built up to a logical conclusion i think it would be a stellar article. ShabiDOO 23:29, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
For. Very good page. Should be named "Screaming Lord Sutch" though, his real name (see wikipedia). He may love this page, and hope Sutchy gets a chance to read it. Aleister 00:36 12-4-'13
For. Definitely for. Good article and good humor. Anton (talk) 11:06, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
Aleister it was originally called Screaming Lord Sutch however SPIKE asked me to move it as no one, he said, would type that in. Click on the discussion bit for the article to understand more. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 06:50, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
That's easy to fix. Just have a redirect on the name "Lord Sutch". Redirect is painless, it brings on many recent changes. Aleister 8:36 12-4-'13
By the way Sutch is actually really dead. The new leader of the OMRLP is Laughing Lord Hope or someone I think. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 11:26, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
Peppered with nominator's signature advocacy. Tell me what is funny about "The then prime minister Magaret Thatcher was coming up with ridiculously silly and stupid policies, which were hindering progression." Spıke¬ 10:42 14-Apr-13
That's funny because Margaret Thatcher is a primeminister who made a huge change for our country and brought us out of a state still distraught and shocked at losing an empire into a boom and ending the Cold War with Ronald Reagen and Gorbachev. She did a lot for the country and brought on change whether it was good or bad so I'm making a joke at saying the Conservative party isn't a serious party but a silly one which does not bring progress when really this would be used to describe the OMRLP. Thanks you. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 12:23, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
Please note that this article was written before Thatcher's death and in no way is meant to insult her. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 12:23, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
For. A good page about a great band. Funnybony has shared lots of things with us and others, and this (page) is one of them. Time to give this article an encore!! Aleister 20:11 31-3-'13
Self-nom and For. This was a crufty article that attracted more cruft overnight, and is now a fresh new rewrite. It was that or Votes for Deletion. Spıke¬ 21:46 7-Mar-13
For. I tried to burn the article, but all I did was get this large brown patch on my computer screen and now I can see the insides a little. So if you can't burn 'em, join 'em. Aleister 21:56 7-3-'13
For. A great article: the construction is very good, jokes are fresh, and, finally, what I mostly like, is that there is truth as well as humor. I would like more articles like this one. But, in some parts of it, it seemed that the article is losing its Uncyclopediness, especially because of the vocabulary used. Anton (talk) 10:54, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
SelfnomFor You know what, I'm gonna nom this. It's basically a true story told to me by either me, my father, my uncle, a former neighbor, or by someone else. And it's one I tried to get some national American sports reporters interested in, and a major one wanted to write about it but got turned down by his editor (and he wasn't happy). Getting this featured may kick-start the story - an interesting part of real baseball history - and will surely put the page high on the search engine list for 'Will Harridge' (EDIT: It's number six on google. More, more!). Thanks for a read. Aleister 21:50 26-2-'13
For. It's great. Reminds me of the song "I am the Monarch of the Sea" by Gilbert and Sullivan British comedy opera writers in which the Lord High Admiral of the Royal Navy sings about how he's never been on a ship or been sea before and got the job by working hard as a bank clerk in London. Same story for Will Harridge it seems. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 07:14, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
This has been on VFH for 77 days, and some users haven't yet weighed in. We are a slow moving lot now, laid back and talking slow in the sun. Pass me the brisket, someone, and open another cool one. Thanks. Aleister 15:40 13-5-'13
I wouldn't be too obvious Al. I once mentioned to Spike on his talk page that my article: Capitalism: in grammar it had received (7/1) on VFH, which was highest on there and yet it hadn't been featured despite the fact that (5/0) and (6/0) articles were and I got this reply:
"VFH is graded on a curve, it changes over time, and Admins have great latitude, so that a vote with a sensible rationale, in practice, carries more weight than a vote with no explanation at all. The other, more important, part about the previous lesson not to pester individual voters is not to pester Admins about evaluating the votes. What spreads across this site much faster than individual recognition is the recognition that certain Uncyclopedians are too anxious about it." SPIKESir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 16:09, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
You may have misread me. I'm glad it's still on VFH, which was my point. 77 days is awhile, so I'm grateful that the admins have left it up, not asking for it to be featured. Five is not enough votes to have something featured. I figure with the rate of voting nowadays, if it clears 7 it's doing well. It'd be nice if Spike read this page and commented, simply because Spike's comments are usually very very entertaining and pointed, and usually include large chunks of good advice and information. I agree totally with the quote from Spike you posted. But the more interesting thing is that this page is mostly true, about the autographs at least. A great deal of the American League's old documents and correspondance was taken to with scissors. The page's description of the office policy of the president emirutus of the American League is near exactly how it happened. Aleister 18:36 13-5-'13
18:52, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
Nom and For. Great article. The (intentionally) incorrect spelling makes it all the better. Take the line "they wont let me take my snappl on the plane becus they think its a bomb so a month ago wen i went on vacashun i said its a snappl ar yu so stupid its not a bomb," what's not to love about that? 
Against. (1) This is a 2-year-old article about a 12-year-old event. (2) Vandalism-quality articles, even if that is the article's goal, ought not be our first (main-page) contact with new readers. (3) This article does a better job of calling attention to the author than making me laugh. If this is nominator's first exposure to "alternate viewpoint" articles, keep browsing the site: We have much better ones than this. 
CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 08:15, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
22:10, Apr 22 22:10, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 23:56, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
