Talk:Frak (expletive)

Spelling

Per the commercial that is running on Sci-Fi channel, the correct spelling is Frak.Thatguy820 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I believe the title of this article should be 'Frakk,' not 'Frack,' as this was the spelling in the original medium in which it was created. What do others think?stemperm 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I believe something similar. I mean it says right in the article that the accepted spelling is "Frak". So it probably shouldn't be "Frack". --MightyGiant 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Frack" was the way it was spelled in the original Battlestar Galacica, but the new Battlstar Galactica uses "Frak" instead because the producers wanted it to be a four letter word. So "Frack" is correct for the old Battlestar, and "Frak" is correct for the new one. see here 70.17.145.115 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Frack is correct spelling. At the same time, though, the first sentence is in error. In the original Galactica, Frack was used exclusively as an interjection, and also by children, giving it a meaning also along the lines of "damn!" "rats," "crap," "hell," and many others, both mild words and less mild. It's use in the new Galactica is almost perfectly aquivalent to modern usage, but still can be used as virtually any expletive, such as "Frak!" (damn! shit! rats! darn!), "What the Frak?" (What the Hell), "Frack it" (Damn it), and all the uses included in the article as well. Also, the "they wanted the word to have four letters" needs to be referenced (referencing another wiki that is unreferenced is not sufficient for "citing a reliable source"). VigilancePrime 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Other

Took out the phrase, "Probably stolen from Farscape. Farscape had the word Frell as a curse word" as it was in the wrong place in the page, unverified, speculative, and had no sources (i.e. not something that belongs in the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.100 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone also needs to find more information on the phrase, "In the PC First Person Shooter( FPS)gaming world there is a famous player know as MotherFracker. He is especially known in the Battlefield series, and Call of Duty series games." It has no sources and is not really relevant to the article. We can't list every FPS player with the word 'frack' in their name, so unless this player is extraordinary to the degree that he deserves to me mentioned in the article, we should just remove this phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.70.100 (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Frack → Frak (expletive) — I've hardly ever seen it in its 5-letter form, always in its four letter forms. People searching for the word will also be expecting as a four letter word, so per COMMONNAME... —Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Does this really need an encyclopedia entry? Couldn't it just survive on wiktionary? Rename if not Deleted 70.51.9.170 (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Frack is the 1978 version, Frak the common version in the new series. Agnostic on change. It shouldn't be deleted - there are reliable source on its cultural impact as a created word... --Relata refero (disp.) 11:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Warhammer

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?p=3423314#3423314 <- Does this mean the word also appears in the Warhammer 40,000 universe? Can anyone verify it? --DocumentN (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It does, it's been used several times in the Commissar Cain books - as well as other's I haven't read, most possibly - and can probably be judged as a canonical cussword, probably similar to Zog. --Amras Calmacil (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional source

Here's a new article dedicated to the word and its historyp[1] Rklawton (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference

Cnn.com: The curse word 'Battlestar Galactica' created 216.125.49.252 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference #1 referring to an Associated Press article is now a broken link to an sfgate.com page. Perhaps a new link to the same article?

History and expletives

Having recently again worked at reading something printed in Fraktur type, and cursing thereby, I'd love to know if any of the original writers had had to take Deutsch back when... The association with expletives would have remained even if unconsciously. Shenme (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not frakkin' likely, IMHO. Fraktur is also called "Fracture", which is the literal meaning of the German word. It's just this name, y'know? --Thnidu (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary My intuition in this case is that this is not an encyclopedia article. It's a definition with some usage and etymology, which is perfect for Wiktionary. Rm999 (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I second this sentiment.... Anyone else? I wouldn't suppose so, given the demographic which has this article on their watchlist.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 02:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Wiki isn't a dictionary - but then it isn't a reliable encyclopedia either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"Frak Pack" sweepstakes

Interesting contribution to the history of the term (re: Chris Talbott article "he did something truly amazing and subversive, up there with what Steven Bochco gets credit for, with 'frak,'") the subversive nature of the made up curse has gotten the attention of censors. Initially the KFC sweepstakes attached to the show was termed the "Frak Pack" sweepstakes (source: http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/sweepstakes/rules.pdf - March 2nd '09), but it has been renamed the "Can't-Say-That-Word-On-TV" Sweepstakes (source: http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/sweepstakes/ - March 2nd '09).

Editors: feel free to re-file as news / blather / WP:NOR etc. I gave my sources. 216.229.170.65 (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Frack/Frak/Frakk as Coat

There is a lot of repitition in the 'other uses' section on the fact that Frack/Frak/Frakk means coat, could this not be condenced to one sentance, or better yet removed altogether as irrelevant? 81.23.54.142 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier usage by Warner Bros.

The 1960 Warner Brothers cartoon From Hare to Heir featured Yosemite Sam shouting out phrases such as “Rackin’ Frackin’ Varmint Rabbit”. Does this invalidate the claim that the expletive "frack" was first used in the original Battlestar Galactica series? Traal (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As used in petroleum extraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing or "Fracking" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.181.249 (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional use found in StarTrek- The Final Frontier

About 15 minutes in to the film, when the scene changes to the USS Enterprise with voice over, then goes to the bridge with Scotty conducting repairs, he seems to say "It's Frakked" just before rising. If someone could please confirm this, I think it's existance should be added to the main page. Thank you. Scaith (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup tag added Feb 2011

This article belongs in a fanzine, not an encyclopedia. I have no idea what a "fictional version" of a word is. Beyond that dubious claim, the article is largely a collection of trivia based on spotting examples of the word. Jack Garfield (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The referances #1 is now a dead link and should should be updated or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarak (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section

Is there a reason the author of this section chose to nearly word for word steal the "Uses of the word 'Fuck'" video / audio / joke that has been on the internet for nearly 15 years?

Not very funny, even given that this is a made up word...

In fact, it's tiresome, poorly copied and a played out cliche.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frak (expletive). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518224926/http://www.blacklibrary.com/pdf/fortheemperor.pdf to http://www.blacklibrary.com/pdf/fortheemperor.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

---

• Frak (expletive) → Frak
• Frak → Frak (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word. WP:SMALLDETAILS says Frak! should not be considered here - it can still be the primary topic for the version with an exclamation point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Station1 (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see evidence for a primary topic. Only about 20% of the views of the dab page result in a clickthrough for the expletive [2] (though all other links get less than that). I wouldn't lean on SMALLDETAILS too much either (the details are a bit too small: we've got Frak, Frak!, Frák and FRAK), and there's one more entry (the Jewish coat) that's spelt exactly frak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  The second is covered under WP:SMALLDETAILS. The third under WP:PTM and the fourth under WP:DIFFCAPS. These can all coexist without disambiguation. (Even if FRAK doesn't stand for anything, there's no evidence of notability and no chance it will ever be primary). As far as the coat goes, there doesn't seem to be an article about it, so at this point it's just throwing random arguments at the wall to see what sticks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just because the details are available to help us disambiguate article titles, that doesn't mean that the average English reader will always navigate in a way that takes the details into account. That's why we have e.g. {{R from title without diacritics}}, Panic at the disco, etc. Just in the last few months we had several RMs where people insisted on merging acronyms and plurals into the same disambiguation lists. --Joy (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• As Uanfala already pointed out, when only 12 out of 58 viewers go to the proposed primary topic, that means there is no primary topic by usage. The numbers are overall so tiny that this makes no sense. I don't see what the argument would be for long-term significance, either. Also, frack is not short-circuiting either. --Joy (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Claiming an exclamation mark is sufficient disambiguation is ridiculous. This in no way helps our users. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to bring to the attention of the closing admin that this !vote totally ignores WP:SMALLDETAILS established policy, to make a point. There is no argument on policy here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I'm sure you're very well aware, WP:SMALLDETAILS is extremely controversial and is very often ignored in RM discussions and their closures (and is also flexible, as clearly stated in the second paragraph). Our main aim should be to help our users, not to smugly point out that what we say meets some naming convention that must be obeyed no matter what (thus going against both WP:BURO and WP:IAR). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  The small details section of the article title policy is meant to help resolve ambiguity in the titles of the destination articles, but it does not preclude all discussion about navigation and disambiguation. It immediately acknowledges the matter of ambiguity and advises us to examine what readers might reasonably be expected to be looking for, and advises to utilize navigation aids including disambiguation pages. I don't think we should engage in these kinds of discussions without a careful consideration of the meaning and spirit of policy text. Likewise, assertions that apparently very reasonable policy is extremely controversial - are unhelpful. --Joy (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  But true! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: to generate a more thorough consensus — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looking over the DAB page, this does appear to be the primary topic to me. And small details does seem to apply here as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• SMALLDETAILS actually likely doesn't apply for Frak! since "Frak" without the "!" is the simplest form meaning it doesn't "indicate a distinct topic" as many readers won't type the "!" but it may be primary by usage[[3]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Tell that to Airplane! or Saved!. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes both are likely correct, in both cases the presence of the "!" indicates a distinct topic which is why those are at the base name and with Airplane the generic meaning is primary for the simple form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• oppose not enough click through to justify primary topic—blindlynx 15:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Revert no consensus close and relist per request on my talk page BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Uanfala's and Necrothesp's arguments as well as Joy's initial contribution. So sorry, no ptopic to see here. Maybe if Battlestar Galactica gets another remake? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. per PRIMARYTOPIC. Never mind SMALLDETAILS, though that helps too. But this use of frak clearly meets the usage criteria: Much more likely than any other use (2987 vs 590 for Frak!) and more likely than all other uses combined (2987 vs 590+29+27=646)[4]. The three opposers say:
  1. They don't see evidence for PT , I just presented it, and it's devastating, as claimed by the nom.
  2. The 20% of clickthroughs from the dab page are not enough. That's irrelevant since most people are Googling or Binging "frak" and getting here directly, so seekers of this use are relatively unlikely to ever get to the dab page.
  3. The exclamation mark is insufficient disambiguation.. Actually it is, per SMALLDETAILS, but that's irrelevant because of primary topic. If anyone really thinks the exclamation mark is insufficient disambiguation, then that's a matter of moving Frak! and is irrelevant here for that reason too.

  So, my dear closer, please note that the opposers have no actual basis in policy, while the proposal is firmly grounded by PT and further bolstered by SMALLDETAILS. --В²C ☎ 05:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Not for anything, Born2, but that might be agreeable if it weren't for Uanfala and the click-through evidence also provided for the closer's perusal. That appears to be more agreeable to me than pageviews. So if you really want to toss out SMALLDETAILS, which you don't appear to actually do, then there is no reason whatsoever to see this minimally used term in a minimally read article (c'mon – 33 pvs per day???) as the ptopic over all the others. Jus' sayin'. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    I addressed the seemingly low click-through number and why it’s irrelevant. Did you miss that? It’s #2 in my list. —В²C ☎ 07:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course. My first thought when I read your #2 argument was, 'If that's the case then why change the name? Readers are finding it anyway, so no need to change.' Not really much of a deletionist, but in this case I don't see any notability. Probably should be merged into the Fuck article. At present, frak isn't even mentioned in that article, so it likely deserves its own subsection like "F-bomb" has, and "Frak (expletive)" should be converted into a redirect to that subsection. Believe it's much less than a ptopic; it may not even be notable enough to have its own page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Put it this way, imagine an article about this expletive didn’t exist. Then what would be at the basename? —В²C ☎ 14:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The base name would still title the dab page, and the "Frak (expletive)" redirect would be listed on the Frak dab page and target the subsection header in the Fuck article. Very common and okay per the dab MOS. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Punctuation, especially trailing exclamation marks, seems ordinarily insufficient as a disambiguator. Click-through evidence is valuable, and indicates no topic dominance. I also don't see much of an argument for long-term significance for the proposed primary topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and send Frak for deletion seriously. Additionally Frak! (video game) and Frak (Java engine) would appear to need parenthesis. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

For that matter, the article about the Javascript engine cites no independent sources, and the main website for both the engine and the company that produced it are on long-dead domain names. I just WP:PRODed it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.