Talk:Ridicule (film)

Untitled

I watched this movie in French class- it was great! But it was kind of hard to follow, so I was wondering if the opening scene was actually a scene from "the present," while the rest of the movie was, in turn, a following of the events that led up to Ponceludon's disgrace at the masquerade? I don't think he was tripped twice; instead, I think that the urination scene (which my teacher censored, lol), was actually retaliation for the ridicule that occured at the end of the movie. Does that make sense? Hopefully somebody can clarify. .onion 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC).onion

The opening scene was, indeed an act of revenge from the past. The disgraced noble reappears after the death of the elderly man upon whom he urinates. The significance of the scene is that the old man is the husband of the Fanny Ardant character, who plots Ponceludon's downfall in exactly the same way . What a powerful comment on a society that alienates a person for falling on the dancefloor! Incidentally, the nobleman at the beginning of the film endured exile for a long time, and was known, much to his humiliation, as "Monsieur Clatterbang"...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyles (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

At first, please excuse my poor English. I have made a change: the end of the movie isn't in New England (In America, Iguess...) but in England just in front of France, which can be seen, as one of the characters said. A little miss in a good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.119.169 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2019

Ridicule → Ridicule (1996 French film) – This film is not the WP:Primary topic for the term "ridicule." That the Ridicule article is about a film was brought to my attention by this edit that The Young Skeptic made. The Young Skeptic had to change the pipelink for "ridicule" to "mockery." I also propose that "ridicule" redirect to the Mockery article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment but leaning to support for two reasons, namely that it's a French film (and thus is far less likely to be searched on an en wiki) and that the page views do not demonstrate that this deserves the primary topic title. However, the proposal, if successful, would remove an actual article from this title and make it a redirect to another and thus removing any primary topic, which feels a bit regressive. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Bungle, I'm not sure what you mean by "if successful, would remove an actual article from this title and make it a redirect to another and thus removing any primary topic." I don't see how disambiguating the title of this article and having "ridicule" redirect to the Mockery article would be a problem. They are synonyms. And the lead can employ WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I just feel it's not a good outcome for the article title to end up a redirect when it's not necessary to do so. A further suggestion has been to dab this article title instead, perhaps with links to Mockery, the film article (if renamed) and others, which would perhaps be a more favorable outcome. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Bungle, you stated "not necessary to do so." But it will either end up a redirect or a disambiguation page. I prefer a redirect since "ridicule" and "mockery" are synonyms. Of course, this page could also be turned into an article for "Ridicule," but it would then be a WP:Redundant fork of the Mockery article. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I am leaning towards supporting making the page a disambig over a basic redirect which has some existing support. As things stand, an article exists here already and there is a hatnote to the proposed redirect; making this a direct redirection doesn't necessarily warrant the existing article being moved as a result, but I do generally accept the current article isn't the primary topic either. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Commented below, as I'm replying to you and another editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Qualified Support. Turns out the article was previously moved to Ridicule (film) in Dec 2010; and the move was then reverted as "unnecessary" in Feb 2011. Ridicule (film) therefore still exists as a redirect. I think a disambiguator is desirable, for the reasons given by Flyer22 Reborn; but surely we can stick with the simple "film" rather than the unnecessarily complex "1996 French film". GrindtXX (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

GrindtXX, thanks for the history on that. I should have checked it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Move to Ridicule (film) and convert basename to a dab page. Proposed title is overly specific and the hatnote on the article also links to ridiculous and appeal to ridicule. PC78 (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support and redirect to mockery In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:ASTONISH but create a DAB at the base name as a compromise per WP:NOPRIMARY given the fact that there are 4 entries that could be included on a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  And yes use Ridicule (film) per WP:PRECISION. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Bungle and Crouch, Swale, I think that when people click on or search for "ridicule," they will usually be looking for the topic that the Mockery article covers. I don't think they will commonly be looking for the Ridiculous article (if at all). Ridicule and Ridiculous are obviously two different things. And as for the Appeal to ridicule article, that can be mentioned/linked to in the Mockery article. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to this discussion for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we could just put Mockery and the film on the DAB then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional Support, The current title title doesn't work, but Ridicule (film) is sufficient per WP:CONCISE. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, surprisingly, and WP:NOTADICT. I was buying the argument, but then I decided to check on the page views and discovered that this French film consistently gets more page views than Mockery. Sure, some fraction of those searching with "ridicule" are looking for Mockery, but it's only a percentage, and, even if it were 100% then the film would still be the more likely topic being sought by users searching with "ridicule". I don't see how landing on an article about a film named Ridicule would ASTONISH anyone searching with "ridicule". The hatnote covers the other (unlikely) sought topics more than adequately. This proposal would only make user experience worse by sending most of the users searching with "ridicule" somewhere other than the article they seek. --В²C ☎ 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Born2cycle (В²C), I really don't understand your reasoning that the film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I don't see how it makes sense to think that most readers who click on or search for "ridicule" will be looking for this obscure film. And I don't think that this article getting more page views than the Mockery article proves that. What I think it proves is that many people are looking for the topic of ridicule and are searching for it under that name more so than under the name "mockery." This will be easy to see once this article's title is disambiguated. In ictu oculi, you're well-versed in move discussions. What do you think of В²C's assessment? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll also go ahead and alert WP:Film to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: "What I think it proves is..." Some, sure, but most? How do you arrive at this conclusion, what's your evidence? It's just as likely that most people landed on the article they were seeking. Your surprise will not be shared by everyone. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

PC78, we are allowed to use common sense on Wikipedia. It is common sense that far people are familiar with the word/topic ridicule than they are with this obscure film. Similarly, even with The Beatles being as famous as they were/are, it made a lot more sense to have Yesterday not redirect to a Beatles song called "Yesterday", and so that was fixed (although fixing it took a few attempts). On a side note: Again, there is no need to ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that qualifies as "common sense". You're just blindly assuming that page views for one article indicate interest in something else. Your Beatles example is not comparabile: there are many things listed on the Yesterday dab page, but there is exactly one page titled "Ridicule". PC78 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Blindly? Really? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." You think that applies to this film? It does not. But if you want to keep on believing that and directing our readers to an obscure French film when they most certainly are not looking for it, that's clearly your stance. It's a stance I will not be supporting. The Yesterday example is comparable. That's why I compared it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Crikey. I was merely commenting on your belief that pageview stats for the film meant that people were actually looking for something else, which unless you're a mindreader you surely don't know. But whatever. PC78 (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, I was using common sense, like others here voting "support" are. In this case, common sense dictates what I stated regarding why this page is currently getting the page views it's getting. But do come back and observe just how many page views it gets once it is finally disambiguated again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah-ha, so the supporters of this move (of which I am one, BTW) are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong? I think I'll leave this here... PC78 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You support the move? And why is that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Quite obviously not the main topic of this word.★Trekker (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Quite obviously the main encyclopedic topic of this word per comments above. —  AjaxSmack  00:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your pipelink to WP:NOTDICT, no one here is arguing for a dictionary entry. Disambiguating this article will see its page views significantly dwindle. I'm certain of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

​You can test your theory without relying on "I'm certain of that". See WP:DABTEST for details. —  AjaxSmack  00:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It'll be tested, all right. Once it's moved back. It should never have been moved away from the aforementioned 2010 action in the first place. This move request, if enacted, will simply be restoring things to how they were. I'm aware of WP:DABTEST. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Folks, I've added WP:NOTADICT to my reasoning. But Flyer22 Reborn, to your point, please know that page views are accurate in terms of gauging relative likelihood of being sought because page views are mostly determined by external search engine searching which bypasses our article naming structure. We could place our articles at random strings and the search engines would find them just the same because they key off of page content, not the name in the url or in the title portion of the page like our internal search engine does. This is why moving articles around does not change page view statistics much. We could move Paris to Jibberish City, and put a dummy article at Paris, and within hours searching for "Paris" on Google will have the WP article titled Jibberish City at the top, and the dummy article at Paris will get hardly any page views (assuming all the internal links get fixed too, etc.). So, in this case, the page view counts tell us more people are interested in the film than in the Mockery article. That's for sure. And, per WP:NOTADICT, that's no surprise. Looking up common dictionary words like "ridicule" or "mockery" is not what people generally do on WP. Anyway, despite most people getting to our articles via search engines, our article naming structure matters... to the minority of our users that do use WP internal search, and so we try to optimize it for them. And to optimize it for them, we use data that results from usage by all users, including those getting there via external search engines. Using that data presumes article interest is distributed about the same among external search engine users as among internal search engine users. I think that's a reasonable assumption, and we don't have any way to discern any difference anyway. In this case we know interest in the film is higher than interest in the mockery article, and since virtually 100% of most users using internal search to find the film will use "ridicule", and only a fraction of the smaller number looking for Mockery will use "ridicule" to find that article, it means that the film is the primary topic. --В²C ☎ 01:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking up common dictionary words like "ridicule" or "mockery" is not what people generally do on WP. Says who? And the proposer showed that this precise thing does happen since someone put the word as a wikilink, and not meaning this movie. Using that data presumes article interest is distributed about the same among external search engine users as among internal search engine users. I think that's a reasonable assumption, and we don't have any way to discern any difference anyway. Good idea, let's look at the Google results. The vast majority of them are about the social phenomenon, the film doesn't come up until page 2, and that is this page. The page view numbers are next to useless since this article has been squatting here for years. Google knows better than to give results for this film first. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The relevant Google search limits the search to the English Wikipedia. Try that. --В²C ☎ 01:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

В²C, WP:NOTADICT doesn't apply since no one here is arguing for a dictionary entry. The Mockery article is about the topic, not the term. And the topic of ridicule and mockery are the same subject. And even if that article were about the term, we have articles on terms. I'm not convinced by your arguments, and this is for reasons I've made clear above. You were also against moving the Yesterday article, and we eventually moved that. You stated that "page views are accurate in terms of gauging relative likelihood of being sought because page views." We can observe what will happen to the page views for this article once this article is disambiguated. I'm sure those page views will significantly decrease. As for "moving articles around does not change page view statistics much"? Well, the test we conducted with regard to the Testosterone article seemed pointless and was noted as such. But I don't think it will be pointless in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well let's see what's going with Yesterday now. Hmm. How much did rearranging affect that scenario? Oh, nada, just as I predicted. The Beatles song remains the dominant primary topic. --В²C ☎ 01:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

One aspect of WP:Primary topic is the following: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." You think that applies to this film rather than, or more so than, the topic of ridicule/mockery? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No. That aspect of PT is an abomination that is used as a rationalization for ruinous RMs like this one, and Yesterday, that make it harder for our users to find the articles they seek. I call IAR on the bullshit ”long term significance“ criteria. —В²C ☎ 03:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Ridicule (film) in strongest possible terms per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. NOPRIMARY does not apply here, so no dab is needed. And it seems very likely that many of the pageviews are indeed people landing here by accident, since the mundane and universal social experience of ridicule is vastly more familiar than this obscure film. Landing here would absolutely astonish: imagine if typing in praise took you to Praise (film) or happy took you to Happy (2006 film). This article is squatting. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The mundane word is certainly more familiar, but that doesn't mean people are looking it up on WP. The page views, which you can trust per my explanation above, tell us they are not, relative to how many are interested in the film. --В²C ☎ 01:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Pretty obvious. Ridicule is mockery. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom, with the move target being Ridicule (film). The film, Ridicule, is about mockery and its effects on people of a certain status. There are no other title matches, and therefore nothing else to disambiguate. What is ridiculous is a different concept, and the appeal to ridicule is a partial title match that is merely a special case of mockery, when it is being used as an argument. bd2412 T 02:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)