# Talk:Bored of the Rings

Last editor linked to an article about Shaquille O'Neal in the table row about the Ballhog.  Re-linked to the generic article concerning the "ball hog" in the sport of basketball.
71.241.104.100 (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be a fun diversion to catalog more of the pop-culture references along with a short about each.
I think some research will show that Lampoon's Henry N. Beard and Douglas C. Kenney who put together most of the parody. P.J. and Ted came later. 
And Moxie's full name was Molotov wasn't it? As in Molotov cocktail - Sparky 23:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Might be a fun diversion to catalog more of the pop-culture references along with a short about each." Please don't. A table explaining jokes is tedious, non-encyclopedic, and nothing destroys a joke (or proves its worthlessness) like having to explain it. As it stands now, the table is a travesty. Rather than adding more of this drivel, better to delete the entire table. Wikipedia at its worst. Don't you people have some obscure video games from the early 1990's that need wiki pages? Or ovens that need to have heads insterted? Wikipedia doesn't need people filling it up with crap for the purposes of "fun diversion".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bevo, I didn't feel it necessary to annotate the obvious - the page is clearly in need of cleanup so it's more in line with WP:MOS. Main gripe is the info bundled onto the end of the article like an after thought... Without headings or anything... Thanks/wangi 20:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1) There is a Bored of the Rings: The Trilogy movie at IMDb,[1] but: a) IMDb...as I understand...can be edited by anyone, and is not considered a reliable Wiki source except for lists of where actors have appeared, b) has no DVD and is not available for sale on Amazon, c) mostly has actors that haven't been in other films, and d) was produced and distributed by a company with no other films. (From the names, it doesn't seem to be based on the Bored of the Rings book: Friggo, Uncle Dildo, Gayladriel.)
2)Translations from original English to other languages are usually not reported in Wiki articles. An exception might be when the author is involved with the translations. (Examples: Tove Jansson with the Moomintroll cartoons (not the books), or, in a French-to-English situation, Hergé with the Tintin books.) Therefore it's questionable that any mention of any translations appear in the article at all. The Finnish and German translations were apparently done without help of the original authors, so they don't even qualify on that account.
3) In general, it is preferred that English references are used in the English Wiki; a distant second best is editor-translated references. I've removed some material about translations that depends entirely on non-English sources (and apparently the Finnish Wiki article). Having "almost all copies" of a book stolen from libraries in one region is not encyclopedic. (Two out of three copies were stolen?) The original research speculation is that this is indicates popularity, but of course it could indicate the opposite, or any number of other things. At any rate, it's trivia -- other Wiki book articles don't cite losses in public libraries.
4) The computer text adventure game already has its own Wiki article, the information doesn't need repeating here.
I've consolidated the information not directly applicable to English book in one area, being in that it's confusing to switch back and forth from the Harvard Lampoon book, and other parodies. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As to 1): How come that we have got an own template for quoting IMDb entries if it is so awfully unreliable? De728631 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


### On the Finnish translation
Yes, sources in English language are preferred. But the problem is, we're talking of a Finnish translation of the book, which was sold in Finnish market. What language, exactly, do you expect vast majority of reliable sources will be in? If you find English sources, they're bound to be second-hand sources at best.
I don't put much faith in "editor-translated" sources - because the sources need to be on their own. It's convenient to have such translations, but there's always the issue of copyrights, and the whole point of using the references is that the encyclopaedia articles are, basically, summaries of material published elsewhere. It's almost as ridiculous as requiring sources to be online: just as we can't expect the editors to always find the sources online, we can't expect the editors to always translate the sources. The unavailability, or unintelligibility, of sources from any specific editor's point of view doesn't mean that the material must be struck out.
And the most important source of this information was the preface of the 2nd edition translation itself. If the publisher thinks the information is reliable and adequate, then so be it.
And I contend it's "trivia". It's part of the lore surrounding the book's publication, and therefore legitimate material for the article. Besides, "trivia" material should not be eradicated, just put in proper perspective within the article itself. Whom does it hurt to have a single paragraph of material in an already long article?
And which source were you referring to as "clearly a 'fanzine'"? Ylioppilaslehti, which since it's establishment in 1913 has become the biggest university student newspaper in the country, with tens of thousands of subscribers? Skenet, a web magazine focusing on Helsinki region culture, and which was established in 1997 by Helsinki Culture Centre and is funded by City of Helsinki?
This just one reason is why newbies find Wikipedia's sourcing policing ridiculous. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and heck yes, mentioning third-party translations is important in this book's case. There's plenty of literature that is notoriously difficult to translate due to cultural differences and/or extensive wordplay, and this book definitely falls into that category. For example, for the life of me I can't understand why the article on The Cyberiad barely mentions the translation, even when it was considered such a difficult work to properly translate. Nary an allusion to foreign translations in Ulysses article, even when such translations get the proverbial "Men and Gods Said It Couldn't Be Done, But Here It Is Anyway" treatment when they come out - what's up with that?! Instead of blanket claim that foreign translations are automatically unworthy of discussion, they definitely should be mentioned when they are worth discussing. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I was an editor on an award-winning university newspaper. Reliable? Encyclopedic? I wouldn't say so. That a paper has been around a long time doesn't mean much. The "National Enquirer" has been around for decades, and it's the opposite of reliable.
This is an English Wiki. That inevitably means that some non-English topics will not have scholarly or reliable references in English. But that doesn't mean that rules of accountability should be broken, just because nothing else better is available. It means those topics shouldn't be included.
The idea that some particular translation is important is highly esoteric and subjective. Translations that are done with absolutely no connection to the original authors -- are just exercises in translation. If there's a scholarly dissertation on nuances of wording -- then the dissertation should be discussed -- not the translated work itself.
Finally, the translations of Tintin into English are widely hailed. And the translations into American English panned. As it happens, I read French well enough make my own translations, and I've had many detailed discussions with native Belgians. I don't agree at all that the English translations are good. The American English translations were better, but not excellent. It's always in a publisher's interest to make their translation sound as authoritative as possible -- and they have no incentive whatever to say "Ok, we messed up, the original authors would have hated this". It's highly unlikely there would be objective criticism of the Finnish translation, even if it was awful. In sum, the translations are both irrelevant and biased. English Wikipedia editors can't check it. Unencyclopedic from start to finish.  Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
A well-established mainstream newspaper that has an actual board of editors doesn't qualify as a reliable source these days? Finally, we have a weapon against all these no-good "news-like" articles in Wikipedia, and all these pesky Biographies of Living Persons. Delete them all, no mercy! Peer-reviewed publications are the way to go! </sarcasm>
Back to my question: What exactly makes either of those sources "clearly fanzines"? If we allow newspaper and (likewise edited) webzine sources in other articles, why can't it fly here? And what, exactly, is the problem with fanzines - some of them, like David Langford's Ansible, are credible on their own right?
Translations are done with no connection to the original authors, that's true. However, one must be pretty hard-pressed to argue that they have absolutely no connection to the subject of the article, that is to say, the work in question. Translations are heck of a lot more important and worthy of discussion than, say, fan fiction - translations are, at least, done with the authorisation of the rights holders.
I'm not saying discussing translations is easy, and we're bound to run into some subjective analyses. But if we allow, say, video game reviews to be quoted in Wikipedia articles to highlight oft-repeated sentiments among video game journalists, why can't we allow the same approach in literary analysis? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm with wwwwolf on all accounts. Although this is the English speaking Wikipedia, there is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting foreign language sources. For god's sake, almost all geographical articles of WP Germany are based on German language sources or on translation from the German Wiki. And yes, Wikipedia's sourcing policy has in fact become more than ridiculous. I say it is both unencyclopedic to verify every second sentence and to NOT rely on foreign language sources in the first place. If you doubt anyone's foreign language references, go ask WP Translation to check it before tossing away the principle of good faith. That said, I'm very much tempted to restore wwwwolf's older edits. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
What you're suggesting, De728631 and wwwwolf is unworkable on a larger scale. Wikipedia can't have descriptions of each of the 100s of translations that have been done for Alice in Wonderland or Sherlock Holmes. Notice the Wiki articles don't mention translations of books.
I wouldn't say comparing translations is not "easy", it's original research. I don't know whether books such as Becoming a Translator (Douglas Robinson) are easily accessible, but the notion that some translation is good, interesting and encyclopedic is a matter for reputable published independent scholars to decide. My experience discussing such nuances with people outside the linguistic field is that they have no interest. I.e., even with proper references, support for such information is too esoteric for Wikipedia.
As for the statement "there's absolutely nothing wrong with quoting foreign sources, this is almost exactly wrong. English sources are "strongly preferred", see [2].
wwwwolf, I can only look at the Finnish source in translation. I have no easy way to check its history. Pulling out of your sleeve statements such as "has an actual board of editors" and "well-established magazine" ... are statements neither I nor other English editors can easily verify. I.e., we have to take your word for it, and that isn't the way Wiki works. Your whole argument is basically "I think it's important and comics are just as bad." I.e., you aren't considering Wiki guidelines or the impracticalities of starting endless discussions on how and which translations are "worthwhile".
Your position, wwwwolf, is fairly clear, "This just one reason is why newbies find Wikipedia's sourcing policing ridiculous." You don't agree with the Wiki policy in some respects. If you don't agree, the place to take your issue is the policy page. Not to violate the guidelines because you don't agree with them.
Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the list of characters, there is no entry for, I think it was "Nosedrool", which is the "Bored" version of Nazgûl. I'm not sure of the spelling, and my copy of "Bored" is in a box in the attic, somewhere. Perhaps someone with ready access can verify all this and add an appropriate entry. Bill Jefferys (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's 'Nozdrul' according to this pdf copy of the book. Bill Jefferys (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This section really doesn't belong here, the other uses are not related to this Bored of the Rings, but are rather related to Lord of the Rings. As the computer game can be handled by a hatnote, the only thing left is to move the MAD Magazine content elsewhere. It is a WP:COATRACKy section in this article. 70.49.125.199 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


### Split off MAD Magazine's version
I suggest that the MAD Magazine's "Bored of the Rings" be split off to a separate article, Bored of the Rings (MAD Magazine) 
70.49.125.199 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the section to split off would not make a viable article. If it cannot stay here then it really ought to be removed altogether. Op47 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Sty (Shire) isn't mentioned in the list of mock names. Is that because it is uncertain what it's an allusion to? Perhaps Stye is a candidate? Drabkikker (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I would assume pig-sty is most likely... AnonMoos (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that makes more sense, thanks! Drabkikker (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I had always thought that this was a reference to the singer Art Garfunkel, who along with Paul Simon was very popular in the late sixties when this was first published.  Glennglazer (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dildo Bugger. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Dildo Bugger until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Frito Bugger. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Frito Bugger until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Arrowroot, son of Arrowshirt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Arrowroot, son of Arrowshirt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bored of the Rings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hehehe I loved this book....

Many thanks! I'll get to this later today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Umm usually we're worried these articles are too plot-heavy...but this has very little. I recall some of the other names being quite funny. Serutan for Saruman (topical for the time), and Minas Troney - chapter "Minas Troney in the Soup" being amusing. I think some expansion here is needed. Not much but a bit more...
Well, nobody reads BotR for the plot, exactly... I've added Serutan and Minas Troney.
True - am torn. Part of me thinks it should be bigger but other part just says follow plt of LoTR I guess. Need to think overnight.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've never had to write a more impossible plot summary really (and I still recall the scars of the 'Use of English' precis text of something musicological, in an earlier millennium, clearly designed to be irreducible: each sentence rambled on from the last words of the previous one; I got an 'A'). Anyway, you've got your ten chapters' worth.
Also the lead is a tad on the small side....
Extended a bit.
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  I think the potted summary adds to the article nicely as the parody names have out-of-universe connotations themselves. Anyway, a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, it was a challenge! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)