Uncyclopedia:VFH/Great Britain

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Great Britain (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Great Britain	Score: 13 butlers
Nominated by:	T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
For: 23	Nom and For. Another IC well done. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC) For. I think this one's my favorite colonization so far. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:46, 11 Apr For. The British for the win! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)  For.. --Dame 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)  For. Eh ok --CrabPope 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC) For. A delightful pastiche of misinformation. So good, it could be a prototype article for this site. IronLung 00:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) For My infirmity kept me from this one, but somehow it turned out great anyway!(?) --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)  Forever and ever, as this article is only a bit funny. Anything with at least 50% of funnies I'll go for. Amen. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 07:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC) For. Pee'd this last night, and forgot to vote "for" then. —Sir Guildensternenstein 15:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC) F♥r. Good job gize. (lol wat's this ic everyone's talkin bout) —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) for. sat down and read the whole article after not seeing it for a few days, and thought 'this is awesome'. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Weak For. Brilliant in parts, not so much in others. But I guess it can't be helped. It's what makes an Imperial Colonization, an Imperial Colonization. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:21, Apr 13 For. It's nice to see a colonization work out. Meta 500 01:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC) All that bullshit historical stuff that Nach and others seem down on is the kinda thing I love to read, and have even tried my hand at (like in this thing SysRq n' I did). Of course, I'm also weird. Meh. For. – Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLedBalloon (talk • contribs) For. I find it an amusing parody of a lot of Brit stereotypes that I suspect more than one Johnny Foreigner would believe to be accurate. As such, I am happy to provide my endorsement. --UU - natter 14:51, Apr 17  For. Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 10:26, Apr. 18, 2009  For. Nice article. Zeitgeist 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) weak for per UU, but also per some of teh against comments, just less so. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 17:20 1 May 2009 For. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:01, 15 May 2009 For. Yes! Hilarious! Thatguyoverthere1 03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC) For. MagaMaga 14:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC) For. An English article for Americans.   Le Cejak • <15:56 May 24, 2009>
Against: 10	Against. Djdorama 21:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Against. Too random. I understand that it's meant to be written by someone who has no idea what they're talking about and in some sections it works well, but in others it doesn't. The history section in particular is too over the top and I don't believe anybody could actually have those misconceptions. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  11:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I think the colonizers tried to cover too many aspects/subjects in one article (similar to the problem we had with Jew thereby creating a mishmash of everything. It's a bit too unorganized to my taste and not enough funny. Sorry. ~ 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC) (discussion moved to talk page by your favorite admin, TLB) ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)  Against. I re-read it as well. a change from abstain to vote against. It looks more like the older style articles where random ideas are chucked together without much reason -i.e. a geographical representation of Great Britain which is actually France. --Romartus 08:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, that one picture at the start of the article is a great foundation upon which to vote against. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC) ugh, this again? it's not like that's the only reason he voted against. he might have slightly misused "i.e.", but i wouldnt go jumping on him and saying he only voted against because of the pic. that seems a bit ridiculous, no? also, why did you block me? Djdorama 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Actually that pic is what swung the vote for me. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 07:17 2 May 2009 oh yeah, re reading the article, against. pretty much per the others, but mostly because i just didn't find it funny. Djdorama 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I did mean e.g. rather than i.e. You could have put up a picture of a British poodle and I would think that is funny. --Romartus 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Relax, TKF's just got his panties in a twist again. I told him he should have bought Hanes Her Way, but nooooo. Incidentally, thinking a picture of a British poodle would be funny isn't helping your case any. :P -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:53, 16 Apr Against - Even though it isn't too long like most country articles, it is still too random and just isn't funny enough. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 05:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Against - There's just no coherent concept on this one. Romartus said it best: random ideas chucked together without much reason. It reads like a collection of mediocre jokes about Great Britain that have little or nothing to do with one another. pillow talk 05:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Against per Hyperbole and 15Mickey20 --Moneke 10:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Against it kind of goes almost everywhere but actually goes nowhere funny --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 12:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Too British Whore cHeDDaR 23:12,11May,2009 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments	<Happyclaw> ok paste the following: Madclaw sez in IRC "It looks great, don't change a single thing. Proxy review via IRC <Happyclaw> shit= official -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Abstain. --Romartus 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Abstain. Djdorama 02:24, 12 April 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.