All Frackles are Monsters; but Not all Monsters are Frackle
I've cleaned page this up and I'm still working on polishing up the frackles in general. I've also added some sources for names and such which should help solidify things. But I just wanted to set the record straight that not all of Cosmo Scam's henchmen are Frackles - namely Thig and Thog (whom have been lumped in the grouping in the past). They are all monsters, but not all Muppet monsters are Frackles. Here is a clip of the dialog from The Great Santa Claus Switch:
- Cosmo: Oh, those gentlemen behind you, the fellas who brought you here: That's Thig, and that's Thog.
- Thig: I'm Thig!
- Thog:And I'm... uhhhh... which one are you?
- Thig: Thig!
- Thog: Oh. He's Thig, and I'm, uh... I'm the other one.
- Cosmo: Not too bright, but they come in handy once in a while. These other assorted evil-looking characters around here, these are my Frackles.
Cosmo implys that the other creatures are the Frackles - not Thig and Thog (and some of his other un-Frackle-like henchmen are not present when the comment is made so we can't assume they are infact Frackles or not). The Monsters on this page are confirmed as frackles, whereas others may just be monsters. -- Brad D. (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
On The Dick Cavett Show in 1971, Jim Henson referred to Thog as a large Frackle, also calling Lothar a Frackle. It can be presumed that all the monsters on the special were listed as Frackles early on, but what exactly a Frackle is would be defined more clearly later on. That is to say, the later-designed Frackles all resemble Boppity and Gloat. Tygerbug (talk) 07:03, November 2, 2013 (UTC)
The Muppet Show Annual 1977 has Green Scoff listed as a character. It rightly redirects here, but the name is not paired with the character. Does it deserve to be a note in it's proper cell, part of the cell title (like Scoff already has), or should the link on the Annual (and other applicable pages) be changed? --Cantus Rock 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge Minor Frackles
I've been looking at the Frackle pages recently. The Frackles are (mainly) nameless creatures with no personality. They are another species of unnamed background characters. Many of the Frackle pages are nothing more than a picture, a description of physical appearance (usually comparing them to Boppity), and a list of where they've been seen. The titles of the pages are very misleading as names are interpreted as species (such as "Green Scoff" or "Pink Bopitty") and some are biased and unsourced titles based on physical appearance (such as "Elderly Frackle", or "Dark Green Hunchback Frackle"). I know there are Frackle nuts out there (I don't want to step on their toes), and some Frackles are somewhat well known characters with names (such as Gloat Boppity and Mo Frackle– so I'm not saying we should get rid of every of the individual Frackle pages. I am thinking that some are unnecessary (especially since we have no real name or noteworthy information other than when they've been seen on camera). What do people think of this kind of merger of the content of some of the minor Frackles' pages into a Frackle index.
Basically we would be merging Dark Green Hunchback Frackle , Elderly Frackle, Green-Furred Frackle, Pink Frackle, Purple Frackle, Snake Frackle, Alarm Frackle and Scoffs into this Frackles page. As time goes on, in information on individuals grow, they could warrant their own pages down the line. But at this point, I don't see the point in all of these separate pages.
But if, as a community, we don't like this idea, we can revert the page back, and every Frackle puppet can keep their own page. I just thought I would toss that out here, Thoughts? -- Brad D. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's a fantastic idea, and it's in keeping with the other "Character Types" pages. It would make things a lot easier to read and keep track of. I think the best reason for one centralized page is that it keeps people from making up their own names and then creating multiple pages for the same puppet. Dancers fixed that problem. I think Frackles should do the same. -- Danny (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in full agreement. The "looks a lot like Boppity" line always annoys me. On a merged page, the common Boppity traits (which basically justs seem to be ears combined with a beak, and nothing else) could be more clearly compared or pinpointed in text, and so on. Andrew Leal (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Fraggles vs Frackles?
From the article, just added: "The word Frackle inspired the word Fraggle." Michael, do you have a source for that statement, or has anyone else heard of this before? Was it discussed in the Fraggle Rock Season 1 commentaries or documentaries or what? Otherwise, it sounds suspiciously like speculation. --Andrew, Aleal 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It was said in Jim Henson: The Works that the word Fraggle was a variation of the word Frackle. If you have that book (or know of a way to read it) it is in the section on Fraggle Rock. --Minor muppetz 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the source, Michael! I found it, and edited the page to add a little more context. --Andrew, Aleal 18:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just edited the page, I got rid of the show/hide all. I just tought I would make it easier for people looking at the page. It's better than always having to click to view the eps. they appeared in. --JStein8104 7 September 2007
Does anyone know Boppity's most recent appernce?-Gtaz
Also the frackles have diffrent pages with and without names. however, with the pops action figure the name Boppity is in the guest book, so even though they are never refered to by thoughs names again they might still have them. since boppity was refered to in a more recent time.