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

Frank's Cock
This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of 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   to the top of the discussion and   at the bottom, then complete a new TFAR nom underneath.

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



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.


 * 2 points by my count. Date relevance (World AIDS Day; this year also marks 20 years of Frank's Cock, so 2013 is better than, say, 2014) and 1 year FA mean 2 points, and last I checked there are no film articles scheduled for November. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, educational, encyclopedic, helps inform readers about important issue related to healthcare. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting article, which differs significantly from the usual film/tv articles featured; World AIDS Day deserves marking (pity the 25th one last year got missed). Espresso Addict (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This was DYK last year on the 25th World AIDS Day. Not as high profile, but we didn't miss it entirely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I didn't know that had been picked up for the portal. Very cool, thanks for the info. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom and Cirt. Btw, on Verdi's 200th anniversary of birth, at least DYK had him pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – apt and very interesting. --  Cassianto Talk   23:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, as per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – Plainly a good choice for World Aids Day. Perhaps the blurb needs a slight adjustment to avoid ambiguity: "Frank has since been diagnosed with AIDS, and the narrator fears his death" – the "his" is Frank, but as written it could equally be the narrator. Not quite sure how to redraw within the word limit, though. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – poignant and good choice for world AIDS day. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I have no preference, just wondering what others think (since I always look for undefined acronmyms). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Formal name, according to what I've read. NFB stands for the National Film Board, which sponsors the award; this information could be put in a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)