Jump to content

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Frank's Cock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frank's Cock

[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 1, 2013 by BencherliteTalk 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hoolboom
Frank's Cock is a 1993 Canadian short film written and directed by Mike Hoolboom (pictured). The eight-minute production stars Callum Keith Rennie as an unnamed narrator who discusses his relationship with his partner, Frank. The two met while the narrator was a teenager and spent nearly ten years together. Frank has since been diagnosed with AIDS, and the narrator fears his lover's death. The story was based on the experience of one of Hoolboom's friends at People With AIDS, which Hoolboom adapted after receiving a commission to create a short film about breaking up. Shot on a low budget, the work is shown in a split-screen format with interspersed scenes from popular culture, gay pornography, and human creation; this format is meant to symbolise the "fragmentation of the body" experienced by AIDS sufferers. Produced by Alex Mackenzie, Frank's Cock was critically acclaimed and won several awards, including the NFB–John Spotton Award for best Canadian short film at the 1994 Toronto International Film Festival. The script has been republished several times and has inspired a short on LGBT issues in Canada's native community. (Full article...)
I'd already picked the DYK up for the Viruses Portal, but hadn't realised it'd run on WAD. Excellent idea. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I have a concern whenever I see undefined acronyms on first occurrence. We all/general readership (should) know what AIDS is-- it is a commonplace acronym-- but do general readers know what LGBT stands for, or are we requiring people to link out for the definition of an acronym? I know what LBGT is, most reading here probably know what LBGT is, but do general readers? I don't know-- just asking, and wondering if it should be defined on first occurrence so those not in the know don't have to click out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think, for the blurb at the very least, the linking is enough (after all, it's not essential to understanding the blurb, and we're limited for space). As for the article proper, I think LGBT is common enough that it doesn't need to be expanded (I'd argue the same for NASA, US, etc.), and "LGBT" is a more common term than "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender". If you would rather we have it explained in-text, I don't mind, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a question of which is most commonly used; I'd say AIDS definitely, and LGBT probably, are more recognisable than the expanded form -- borne out in the article titles. With LGBT, if it's expanded at all, it's usually to les-gay-bi-trans, rather than the complete words. NFB was the one that stopped me but I assumed that was the formal name of the award. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]