Uncyclopedia:VFH/HowTo:Write A Funny Band Article

Score: 14 bands who are teh roxxors!

1. Nom & For. As VFH is still a trifle on the anaemic side, I offer up this, which I reviewed a while back and enjoyed. Yeah, it may be a tad in-jokey or self referential or whatever, but it's funny and I think it says much that people need to hear. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | KUN | Natter | Lt? | Pee 20:57, Apr 23
2. For Not bad at all... MrN  20:44, Apr 24
3. For. It could us another picture, though. Emo, probably. Back in my day, we didn't have Emos. We only had Emus, which were big, flightless birds that wrote poetry and cut themselves. As time went on, they got jobs and, by the 1970's, joined the establishment, becoming ostriches. I kid you not. Sir Modusoperandi 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
4. For featuring this, and then giving it a blurb in HTBFANJS. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:15, Apr 24
5. For what Led sed. -OptyC Sucks! cun20:02, 26 Apr
6. Agreed because it actually is helpful, but in a perfectly satirical way. Whatever that means. -- Spillin DylanTALKEDITS04:26, April 27 2008
7. For. Very well written. More votes!! • • • SIR FELLOW STAIN Necropaxx KUN {PotM VFH VFP VotM PEEING} (Beseech) 14:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
8. For Though the prose in some areas could use a bit of cleanup -RAHB 05:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
9. For This article could really help to make people finally see the...oh, who am I kidding. Still, now people have polished it up, it looks worthy enough. -

Featured Article: HowTo:Write A Funny Band Article This person wrote an article which became one of the Featured Articles on Uncyclopedia.

Commander of the Order

1. Funny, and a good public service message for the front page. Only complaint is the Paris Hilton picture should be replaced because she isn't famous so much for her music as for... you know, that stuff she does to be famous... --So So 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
2. For --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 03:07, May. 18, 2008
3. Frie --Grand General Wizard Etc x2 and Senator G/K/O/CUNT.K.F. WHORE! ZOTM MAFE VANDL UOTM WOTM TOP10 FP PMOTM UWotM 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Dig works for me. --THINKER 04:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
5. ForFou-Lu 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Flip-flop You know, considering that Under_user has shown that there's precedent for Uncyclopedia-themed articles, and considering that I've cited this article like three times in PEE, I think I owe it a for. And now I can say I voted against it before I voted for it. --Hyperbole 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
7. For --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 21:45, Jun. 12, 2008
8. sure   CAKE J! <17:17, 13 Jun 2008>

1. Hate to be the naysayer, but articles about articles no longer do it for me. Seems like a great article, but I'm a little tired of HowTo: Do something on Uncyclopedia articles. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ CUN • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 18:45 May 22
2. Against.- I have to agree with SysRq here. With all the whineing about droping users, I don't really think having the first thing you see on the main page is one of these "self Referencial" Jobs is going to help.--— Sir Sycamore (talk to me) 11:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Against - sorry, just not seeing it here. Also as SysRq. ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS] (talk), 29/05 09:53
4. Against - I thought it was very funny, but the others are right: articles about a parody encyclopedia do not belong on the front page of a parody encyclopedia. --Hyperbole 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed, we can't be seen to feature an article about editing Uncyclopedia. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | KUN | Natter | Lt? | Pee 09:09, Jun 3