Uncyclopedia:VFH/Forum:Article huffing (2nd nomination)

Article: Forum:Article huffing	Score: 1.5
Nominated by:	84.194.239.240 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
For: 8.5	For. This article was nominated to become a featured article; however, due to several votes being huffed by an admin, it didn't make the cut. 84.194.239.240 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Oh my geeze. So For Amy Rose 22:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I laughed a lot. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:57, Sep 25 This is more like an article than a forum anyway. And hilarious. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 04:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC) For If it is funny, it deserves feature. Well... when it's this funny. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC) For. I like this article, since it's creative and original. Just because its a forum doesn't mean it should automatically be dismissed as being lame. apollo1758 02:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Best. Forum. Ever. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 19:39, Sep 27 As per last time... "If you want to vote against because you don't think this is funny, then that's obviously cool. But... This kind of thing obviously goes on at any wiki, so this is not just an in-joke relating to Uncyc. If we are a Parody of Wikipedia, then surely that's exactly what the ~~talented~~ bastard Dr. Skullthumper has done." ... Although I changed the talented part a little. Mr N 19:46, Sep 27 For. 100% Hilarity. Judge Adriano "Legal" Zarbi Talk! 13:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Against: 7	Against. In joke. ~ 23:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Against. As per above. Seriously, though, featuring forums is lame. Featured articles are supposed to be showcasing someone's hard work (or just something really, really funny). For anything besides hard work to be featured, it better be absolutely hilarious, unlike this. (Granted, it's funny. It's just not funny enough.) --Mr. Monkey Pant-hoot here. 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC) observation: That was mostly one person's hard work... --monika 00:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Nah Problem as I see it is, everyone sees it as a parody forum; ie. parodying aspects of a forum anyone could find at any forum. However it's just intended as more of a kind of rant (for want of a better word) incorporated with aspects of our regular forum. If it was a straight parody would it be any funnier? No. If it were more of a "rant" would it be funnier? No. Can I see this making any sense on the front page? No. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 04:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Against. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) 'Against as above. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 01:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Against. 71.114.133.135 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Against. 71.83.175.8 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Against. *Style* *Guide* 07:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments	Some may consider this an in-joke, but if you read it through, normally, you should completely understand the situation, whether you're familiar with Uncyclopedia or not. So it would seem to me as an inadequate reason to vote against. 84.194.239.240 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I beg to differ, this makes no sense to someone who is not familiar with VFD, article huffing etc. Also, I don't find it funny, but that's a different story. ~ 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Well, ofcourse some may not completely grasp all concepts related to this page right away, but even then it can be funny. Also, I think most people who visit Uncyclopedia know at least a little about the workings of a wiki (such as the deletion of articles) and should have figured out that Uncyclopedia may be just funny in some silly way, or extremely hilarious. 84.194.239.240 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC) And also, though I understand that not many people would find this truly hilarious, I could say the same about a lot of the articles that actually DO get featured. 84.194.239.240 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Well, sure, '84, but we already know that humor is subjective. Some call it humour, for instance. That's why VFD is a vote. It's an attempt to objectively measure something that is fundamentally subjective. What a rotten deal! Now, the good Dr. put a lot of work into the piece but it's not an article. Here's what I would suggest: Put the good old literary frame around it. Write a header on it explaining that the topic was a seminal moment in the history of the ancient Uncyc empire (561 - 298 BC), give a brief bio of the "author" along with an illustration or two. Then put in the forum text. Finally, close the frame with a short but pungent analysis of the piece. It's not an article; make it into one. ----OEJ 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC) You huffed articles that I created ----UF1 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC) It takes about 5 seconds to understand the bit, in-joke or not - why I voted no is because some of the jokes (car keys) don't fit in. You'd never seriously ask about your car keys in a blog... well maybe without medication you would. *Style* *Guide* 07:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC) If this wouldn't get featured, it would certainly deserve a QFA-template. If not per this nomination, then certainly per the first one. 84.194.239.240 13:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC) No it shouldn't. Read the QFA rules - you need at least half of that day's featured article. This nom isn't going to make, nor did the first one. On the day that it was closed this was featured, so the first nom needed 2 more votes to qualify for QFA. ~ 15:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Actually, at the time of removal (11 April), Prince and the Revolution was featured, and Ant was already queued, both with 11 votes, which would at the very least make this a very close call. 84.194.239.240 17:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC) I stand corrected. Still, close but no cigar. ~ 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)