Jump to content

Talk:Ridicule (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 14 August 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ridicule (film). Three parts to this move request:

1. No compelling argument was made against the long-term significance of "ridicule" as referring to "mockery", a well-established article, over this movie, meaning that at the least Ridicule should be a dab page, and quite likely a redirect to mockery.

2. The proposed title for the movie's article was soundly rejected for unnecessary lack of conciseness; (film) is fine.

3. There's not much of a consensus about what to do now regarding Ridicule - do we redirect or make it the dab?. As per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, since there's no clear consensus other than that the film cannot stay, and because good arguments were made on each of the two remaining sides, I am forced to arbitrarily choose... so let's put it at a disambiguation page. Anyone who thinks it should be a redirect to mockery instead is invited, nay, urged to file a move request at the new Talk:Ridicule. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Commented below, as I'm replying to you and another editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GrindtXX, thanks for the history on that. I should have checked it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I would oppose Ridicule (disambiguation) being moved over ridicule. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I suppose we could just put Mockery and the film on the DAB then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also go ahead and alert WP:Film to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You support the move? And why is that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
​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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The relevant Google search limits the search to the English Wikipedia. Try that. --В²C ☎ 01:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Only you think that, and you only think that because you don't know the purpose of an encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: you might want to archive that comment calling Primary Topic "bullshit" for the next time the ban on Born2cycle comes up, as it sums up the long term disruption. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did 1,558 readers in the last 30 days really want to learn about this obscure film? Ridiculous! Our readers (not all of whom speak English as a first language) are being directed to the wrong place. Both limbs of WP:PTOPIC apply:
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.
It is nothing to do with us because all Wikipedias are independent, but the corresponding French article got 2,205 page views in the last 30 days, and I'd wager that the majority of those were by readers looking for the French noun and adjective ridicule. The views in the last 30 days for the film in Dutch, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish, in none of which is 'ridicule' a word, were 27, 159, 130, 22 and 149 respectively; which is about what I would expect. Narky Blert (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AjaxSmack: would you argue for the 2,205 page view French article to be deleted on your (sorry, but IMHO mis-)reading of WP:NOTDICT? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Maybe the film gets more views on the French Wikipedia because it's a French film? Just a thought. Again, why do we assume that pageviews for X indicate an interest in Y? PC78 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which says don't follow page views, don't follow article titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says at all. PC78 (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And now ...close and move per WP:SNOW. Good to see windows on reality outside Wikipedia being open. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wiki Education assignment: French Film

[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): McKenzie Gallagher50, Belgsend22 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by McKenzie Gallagher50 (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ridicule_(film)&oldid=1260850275"