Talk:The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs

Episode is about South Park

If you listen to their recent NPR interview, and granted I'm just going off the top of my head here, but I think they mentioned that this episode was about South Park itself. How it was originally seen as a new Beavis & Butthead/The Simpsons type of show, but was criticized in comparison because those shows "had an underlying message" whereas South Park was just dick jokes. Anyway, I think it's in the last 10 minutes of the interview, if anyone wants to verify. Link here: [1] - Brokenyard (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a great interview, thanks for the link! In listening however and reading the transcript, I don't see any reference to this particular episode. They talk about academic books and intellectual comments drawn from the episodes near the end of the interview, but never about this episode. — Hunter Kahn 06:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed cultural references section

Can someone please explain to me why the cultural references section is not appropriate in this article when it's appropriate in the previous Sexual Healing episode, as well as numerous other South Park episode pages? The content of the episode seems like a direct reference to the information contained in this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Tale_of_Scrotie_McBoogerballs&oldid=35189206524.118.170.221 (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The episode just aired, and what you linked is an unsourced bit of original research. Cultural references are often integral to South Park episode articles, but shouldn't merely list indiscriminate pieces of trivia/information. In s short time, there will be plenty of reliable sources available to verify some of the "cultural references" that can be written about with the proper content and might help a reader learn more about what is being referenced. If the Palahniuk bit you mentioned can be verified, it would be a good inclusion. As of now, it merely stated that parts of the episode "may be" a reference to the fainting done at the reading, which constitutes original research/speculation perpetuated with weasel wording. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Over-analyzation

Forgive me for being a bit petty but is "analyzation" actually a word....? Surely "over-analysis" would fit better. 82.5.68.95 (talk)

• Replaced. — Hunter Kahn 14:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you over-analyzing this too much? (sorry ...couldn't resist). But yeah, "analyzation" is a word. "Analysis" (root word) does sound better though. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references?

From the section so named;

• The episode also prominently features members of the Kardashian family, who are the focus of the E! reality series Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Kris Jenner, her husband Bruce Jenner and her daughters Kim, Kourtney and Khloé are all portrayed in the episode. Sure, okay, that's them alright. That's your reference to popular culture. But...
• The three daughters are purposely animated to look unattractive, and they behave in a spoiled and irritating manner. How is that a cultural reference? The cite also says "looked soooooooo gross LOL"...
• Butters expresses a particular romantic attraction to Kim Kardashain, who he says "is so sexy her butt is like a big mountain of pudding". The Kardashians are eventually murdered when a reader, inspired by Butters' second book, shoots them to death with a shotgun. Plot repetition, already mentioned in the plot section.
• Sarah Jessica Parker, an actress who has been mocked on South Park before, is also lampooned in "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs". She is animated to look particularly ugly, and is described by a reporter as a "transvestite donkey witch". Like the Kardashians, Parker is killed in the episode after Cartman and Kenny dress her like a moose and release her into a forest during hunting season. Unlike the Kardashians, however, her death is off-screen. Apart from the inaccuracy of "transvestite donkey witch" (closer is boiled horse), what here is a cultural reference? I see some plot reiteration and nothing else really. Yes, the lady appeared, that's it surely? Alastairward (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I wrote a lot of the material in question here, and I will be the first to admit that I do sometimes tend to go a little overboard in writing cultural references sections. You're right, the whole thing about Butters and the "big mountain of pudding" is unnecessary and the stuff about the deaths is redundant to the plot. However, I think there should be at least some mention, if not here then in the Production section, about how the characters are portrayed in a particularly unflattering light in the episode. The information is cited, and Parker and Stone obviously made a deliberate decision to portray them this way, so I think it's worth mentioning somewhere in this article. Do you think we could add a sentence or two either into Production, or back into cultural references? — Hunter Kahn 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it's useful somehow, being cited. Perhaps it might go into the production section? Alastairward (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• My personal preference would be to keep it in the cultural references section, which I think would be alright as long as it was succinct and not overly long. Mainly because since the article sort of introduces Parker and the Kardashians in "Cultural references" , and doesn't mention them at all in "Production", I thought it was sort of awkward trying to bring it up in Production. I also don't think it's entirely inappropriate for Cultural references, since that section is where we're supposed to be talking about things like celebrity cameos and references. But, if you still don't agree, I'll add it to production... — Hunter Kahn 02:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Feuchtgebiete

That reminds me on the 2008 novel Feuchtgebiete (Wetlands) by Charlotte Roche. Highly disputed in Germany, if it's a Masterpiece or gross and pornography and was the world's best-selling novel in March 2008. :) --Lkl ★ 09:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought!! Hard to verify, though. Schöne Grüße, KenArkane 188.23.74.182 (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again: veteran south park border patrol officers united against the pettiest of edits

I guess wikilinking the words that construct the episode title is way too much for you, Hunter Kahn and Alastairward. Oh well, I will not fight this as my priorities in life are a little better organized. Enjoy your triumph once again, as it seems to be the highlight of your day. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CTJF83 chat 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead I changed "horrified" to "enraged" about how the boys feel about Butters success.

Nothing needs fixing, an outstanding article, passing and suggesting. FAC. CTJF83 chat 18:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of Kim Kardashian

Is it really necessary to have an image of Kim Kardashian in this? She only appears for a few seconds here and there, and doesn't do much. We don't have an image of J.D. Salinger, and this episode has much more to do with Catcher in the Rye than the Kardashians. This is pure fancruft, as it does little but advertise Kim Kardashian, and I will be removing it. If you feel there is some need to have it here, feel free to revert me; however, please discuss it here as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I put the image there, but I'll wait to see if any further discussion is generated here before I revert anything. I think the image of Kim Kardashian is of value to this article, not only because she is featured in the episode, but because her on-screen demise prompted her and her family to publicly respond. There is educational value in illustrating a subject that plays such a role in this episode. (I, personally, wasn't really at all familiar with Kim Kardashian prior to this episode, except from hearing about her here and there, so I know the image would be useful to a reader like myself.) Also, the fact that Butters is so physically attracted to her makes a visual representation of her useful. I'd argue that a Kardashian picture is actually of more value to this article than one of a J.D. Salinger image because a) he isn't portrayed himself in the episode (even though his works are), b) obviously, he didn't personally respond to the episode and c) his visual appearance played no role in the ep. Also, while this isn't a primary argument, the only images available of Salinger are non-free, whereas there are images of Kardashian readily available. (I don't think it's worthwhile to come up with a non-fair use rationale for the use of a Salinger image in this article, and I don't think it would pass the image policy if we tried.) So, for all these reasons, I think the Kardashian image should be restored. (I also think it's best to illustrate these articles were possible and appropriate, but that's obviously not one of my arguments in favor of it...) — Hunter Kahn 22:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. Personally, I think a link in the article to Kim Kardashian would probably suffice for a visual representation- someone can click on that link, and the image is right there at the top. However, if precedent means anything, we have an image of Tiger Woods on the Sexual Healing episode page (where his visual representation means even less; not only is it tangientially relevant at best, has anybody REALLY not seen Tiger Woods before), so I guess I'll go along with that. I'll restore the image myself, and see if any more discussion comes up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• One other argument I'd make is that when we write these articles, we should keep in mind that people will be reading them in 10, 20, even 50+ years from now. By then, people might not even remember who the Kardashians are (God willing), so a visual illustration would be all the more important. — Hunter Kahn 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

I saw that a tag was added to the article expressing that the plot may be overly detailed and too long. It appears this was correct, as the plot had been added to over the last year to include much excessive and unnecessary detail. Since this article is a GA, a plot tag like that is clearly unacceptable, so for the time being, I replaced the plot section with what had been the plot summary at the time that the article passed GA. That plot summary is better in line with WP guidelines, and since it was peer-reviewed at that time I imagine it should be considered acceptable, so I removed the plot summary tag. The old plot summary before my change is preserved in the article history, so if anyone feels some crucial bit of information is missing, we can discuss it further here. — Hunter Kahn 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The V-A of Lucifer NB

Is anyone else familiar with The Vagina-Ass of Lucifer Niggerbastard, and does it have a place in this article? 66.41.104.197 (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember The VA of LNB book very well, but sorry, no, it does not belong in this article. First of all, the book fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it's an obscure little book only known among hardcore bizarro fiction enthusiasts, and while many Internet forums claim that the episode was inspired by the book, most evidence leads to the fact that the book didn't come out until May 2010, less than two months after the episode. There might even be online theories that the VA of LNB book was inspired by this episode, but none of this can be in a Wikipedia article because no reliable sources mention this real-life book; it's all underground talk. So as much as I love the book, I'm sad to say that thanks to notability guidelines, we can't mention it in this Wikipedia article. Star651 (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs. 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/20100915134845/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=4&year=2010 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=4&year=2010

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) 01:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs. 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/20100329134843/http://indyposted.com/14775/south-park-episode-scrotie-mcboogerballs-trending-twitter-gives-lessons-on-books/ to http://indyposted.com/14775/south-park-episode-scrotie-mcboogerballs-trending-twitter-gives-lessons-on-books/

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) 01:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Ironically Unnecessary"

Ironically, I find this pair of words unnecessary: "and mocks people who find hidden messages in works which are ironically unnecessary".

I couldn't find a good way to rephrase it, but if anyone could give it a polish, it would be nice. Maybe using a more objective description for the hidden messages, or just get rid of it altogether. 191.183.100.218 (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Quoted phrase

There is a quoted phrase in this article - actually, I learned that there a lot of South Park episode summaries have quoted phrases supposedly for emphasis, even though I’ve read a lot of articles for other TV shows that don’t see an apparent need for that. I figured that the same applied for South Park episodes, but I was told to bring this to a discussion. TheVHSArtist (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, VHS.

For my part, when I write plot summaries, I generally restrict myself to paraphrased wording, as do other editors, in my observation. However, we will sometimes use a direct quote if I feel that paraphrased wording is either too vague or doesn't emphasize the gag in a way that conveys the point as clearly, or if the phrase in question is central to some type of gag in the episode's colloquial language. For example, the closing line of the plot summary for "Insecurity" relates that Cartman tells a character that he should have "Respected my authoritah". This is because it's a line that Cartman is famous for, and mentioning this is reasonable, especially since it's the line that ends the episode. Paraphrasing, IMO, wouldn't have conveyed the relevance of this language. Another example is "Obama Wins!", whose plot summary says that "everyone knows General Tsao's 'chicken'", rather than "everyone knows General Tsao's a coward", because the line is A. a play on words with the Chinese-American dish, and B. a recurring gag in that episode.

With respect to the Butters line in this episode, I don't think paraphrased wording explained the closing line in a way that conveyed the gag as well, and since this was the line that closed the episode, it's why I agree with the editor who changed it to a direct quote. Now obviously, whether a given passage merits a direct quote may be subjective, but that's why Wikipedia policy says that consensus is the standard upon which such things are decided. Since at least two editors favored that wording, and one who does not, then any further challenge to this should come through discussion.

Now you said, during your initial revert, that "we don't include quotes in episode summaries." Your use of the word "we" seemed to imply that you referring to some sort of editor consensus, if not some policy, guideline, or Manual of Style. Just to clarify, were you citing one of those things? Nightscream (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I simply thought that generally, direct quotes generally weren't acceptable in episode plot summaries, since a lot of plot summaries I've read did not employ them. But reading this discussion, as well as previous versions of the article, I can see how paraphrasing it would not convey the end very well. But I did have an issue with an earlier edit that had a grammatical mistake, which I tend to get nitpicky over, so I edited that. I hope this clears things up. TheVHSArtist (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)