Uncyclopedia:VFH/Rhetorical question

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Rhetorical question (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Rhetorical question	Score: 3 ?
Nominated by:	Docile hippopotamus 10:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
For: 13	nom and for. It's funny. --Docile hippopotamus 10:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) For. Come on, do I really need to explain this? -- El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 11:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC) For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)  For. Pshaw fine then am I changing my mind? Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) For. It's excellent. ChiefjusticeDS 20:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) How did you think I was going to vote? -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:18, 7 Aug Aye. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 23:42, Aug 7 Bless. 17YEARSOFcHeDDaR 03:35,8August,2009  For. per above. --Mn-z 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) For. 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 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC) For. Wait - did I just vote for? Style  Guide 16:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC) For. Although the joke starts to wear thin... -- lavish Ape (ruminate) (Riot Porn) 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC) +1, though got painful by the end -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!)
Against: 10	nope--Dinosinatra 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Against. Though I really like the concept (obvious though it might be), I'm not a fan of the article's tone, which comes off as being very juvenile, which totally ruined the article for me. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 15:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)  Against. Full marks for writing about the Rhetorical Question but I don't think it does justice to the issue. It would be a subject I would think 100 times before thinking about trying to turn it into an article - let alone a VFH. Sorry.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Against. Not enough detail. InMooseWeTrust 01:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Nah. It's been done better previously here. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 18:58, Aug 10 Against. Per Led. --UU - natter 10:15, Aug 11 Against. I don't like the tone. Per Guildy. Nameable • mumble? 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Agaibst, per Led and Guldy, except that I hated the Socratic Method article, too. And these don't really seem like rhetorical questions anyway. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 11:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Against. Boring. OrangeAipom 04:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Against. Got too many little mistakes in it which are extremely off putting. Sir Sunbeam no u F@H KUN 15:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments	NOOO Dont disappoint me like this! Such a great concept worthy of front page but not so awesome execution. Really makes me sad. Too short and too many red links. Abstain. Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 11:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Dude, if I clean up the red links, will you change your vote? (that's rhetorical btw, also I promise I'm not stalking you >:))--El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 11:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Seriously? There were THREE red links, all to popular non-articles. I don't care if it affects your vote (if it does, you're a much pettier man that I thought) (well, not much, actually), but I'm going to be adding those back in. I've had a few ideas for Waiting Room myself, actually. See? They're helpful! I'm inspired to write an article now! -- 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 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder, but in this case I'm just getting no real ha-ha, just a bit of ho-hum. Clever, but not quite FA. Ask me again after the next round of revisions. Pup t 05:26, 9/08/2009

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH