Talk:Frak

Frak versus the Atari game

"Believe it or not, there IS a difference between Frak and Frak! The first is a Battlestar Galactica-ism and the latter is an old Atari game. (see TALK page)"

This is similar to the difference between Googol and Google. They may sound the same, seem the same, but they are very different. A little s[pelling goes a long way.

(Anyone up for a Frak (disambiguation) page?

(kidding!!!)

VigilancePrime 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Frak was used in the original Battlestar Galactica as a curse word, typically yelled (Frak!) during a tense moment in a space battle. However, it has come into its own with the new BSG as it is used in every possible form (Frak you!, frakkin' toasters, We're frakked!, You've been frakking her, haven't you?). A similar strategy was used with the TV show Farscape and its use of the word frell/frelling/frelled.

From the Wikiquette page: "...please do not create an entry merely to define a term. Sometimes an article can and should begin with a good definition..."

This page does not merely define the term Frak. It gives the history and source, as well as a little on how this term, created solely for a fictional show, has come into common language in limited form.

"Merely" defining the term would be impossible as there is no one official definition. There is relevance of this just as much as there is to the other single words linked from this article and the main Battlestar Galactica (2003) article.

(Also of note: the Wikionary has no entry for Frak.)

VigilancePrime 02:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The word frak has some pop culture equity. I see no reason why it doesn't deserve an article. 23skidoo 02:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, furthermore there is room for some discussion to be had about it as an example of a property of naturalistic science fiction, using cursing as a way to humanize their characters. Both Firefly and BSG find clever ways to incorporate swearing into the shows. "Frak" is interesting enough to deserve its own article and that is certainly true if one includes the aformentioned dimension, since it shows the term has importance outside of the BSG world. 67.165.66.203 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an ersatz for "fuck"—that much is stated in the redirected articles and there's little to the subject beyond that. I will nominate this for AfD if you revert it again. — Phil Welch 06:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, 23skidoo, it certainly is enough of a phenomenon in itself. Only Phil seems to think he owns the Battlestar Galactica page and everything related to it. (And reading the Galactica talk pages, that observation is solidified.) VigilancePrime 07:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [BTW: is that a threat, the AFD comment? The wording is in the form of a threat. Why is it, Phil, that you cannot seem to allow anyone to think something different from you? People agree that it should have its own page. What was (is?) included in this page is much more thorough than what is in the BSG page. Wikipedia itself specifically gives guidance about deleting recently-created pages even too, which is what you effectively have done twice to a page that clearly meets that criteria.]

Additional note: if you read the ersatz page, you will also see that 1. the accuracy is disputed and 2. it is NOT a noun in English, but an adjective. That means that the statement "frak is an ersatz for fuck" is an erroneous statement. (and on the side, Mr. Objects-to-dictionary-like-articles is referencing a very dictionary-like article...) VigilancePrime 07:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Grammar. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to understand the policy basis behind not having dictionary definitions as articles. Articles like fuck, cunt, and nigger explore beyond the dictionary definition of a word to the history, usage, and cultural significance these words have—something that cannot be accomplished for this article without making the leap to (a) making things up and (b) treating what is presently a small SF fandom community as culturally significant. As for listing it on AfD, AfD is a place to gain community consensus on whether an article is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia—consensus that is clearly not present here. — Phil Welch 20:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) (that was a joke)

Placing it on AFD would be fine; the tone of the first message, though, came across as threatening. (Granted, it can be difficult, I realize, in text only, to properly convey intended tone.)

It just seems like an equal violation of Wikipedia principle to categorically delete the page (which is effectively what you did both times). No reason it couldn't remain at least long enough to build more. The different possibilities and usages of Frak give it an article larger than many already on Wikipedia.

(For that matter, some of the character pages could be removed too, as they were smaller and said little beyond the BSG article and they were not even regular guests, but slightly more than recurring extras with lines, but we have a little flexibility for articles that have growth potential.)

FWIW, Frak easily can and eventually should find itself an independant article again, especially the way the BSG producers et al are pushing the show and expanding on everything, including the various uses of the term. There's many points that were in the original frak article that are not in the BSG article.

VigilancePrime 20:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've largely added those points to the BSG article. I personally would like to keep the BSG-space on Wikipedia relatively small, since, wonderful series though it is, it has nowhere near the fandom of Star Wars or Star Trek, and it would be simpler and more maintainable to keep everything in a small number of articles. — Phil Welch 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be simpler and could be more maintainable (so long as the organization was planned out and constantly updated) to have the information in a base article. There is, though, the consideration that people may tend to be more willing to read a couple smaller articles (not small, but just less big) than one huge one.

As for the fan base, currently yes, BSG has not the fanbase, but I'm sure you can envision a time where it could catch and possibly surpass one (or both? probably not, but you never know) of them. Especially considering the phenomenal response and ratings it has been getting, in spite of a lot of classic Galactica fans originally boycotting or hating it (I admit to being one of those uninclined to watch initially).

And, Phil, I saw a couple of your recent edits/adds/rephrases on the BSG page and wanted to point out that you're right on about the CNP program and Six's connection to it, and your recent mods have been good. (Point to note: we all can get along, and I would like to.)

VigilancePrime 20:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I search for Frak, an old Acorn/BBC computer game, and immediately get sent to the Battlestar Galactica page. This is very, very confusing. Cpc464 16:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So did I. So I've changed the redirect to point to Frak! instead. -- Etimbo ( Talk) 22:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Add new ETF with fund ticker "FRAK"

I added FRAK a new ETF Mutual Fund with Ticker Symbol FRAK, commencement 2/14/2012. Ref: http://vaneck.com/funds/FRAK.aspx?redirectVE=generic HalFonts (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Frak (expletive) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)