Talk:Ridiculous (album)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: accept; the page had been moved already by someone at 16:01 on 13 February 2011. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous → Ridiculous (album) — The current Ridiculous article is about an obscure album, and should be at Ridiculous (album), which currently redirects to the unmodified Ridiculous. The term “ridiculous” is a common English word, and has a general use, which is only slightly more specialized as used in psychology, advertisement, theory of humor, and comparison to the sublime, which is all currently at ridiculous (general use),. So the ridiculous article should be about general use and common specialized uses. PPdd (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Re move proposal: On the difference between ridiculous (general use) and both ridiculous (philosophy) and absurdity
Maybe I should have started it in user space (I will read up on how to do this), but there is enough now for a stub. I did not intend either of these articles to be restricted to philosophy, or a single branch of philosophy, but this should be a section in both articles. While sometimes used as synonyms in general usage (or as briefly stated in some imprecise dictionaries), absurdity has more to do more with illogic and reasoning, and in a particular use in existential (but not other branches of) philosophy with the condition of life as attempting to find meaning when there is none (enough has been written about absurdism that it has its own article). "Ridiculous" has to do more with incongruity, or in one specialized use with a condition of the miserableness of one's existence, which is very different than absurdism in existentialism (although it is thematically similar to existentialism. The "ridiculous" article is intended to be much more general than just limited to use in philosophy (or one branch of philosophy), although a section about the sublime might be called philosophical in tone, though not recognized as a branch of philosophy. Since "ridiculous" occurs in many Wikipedia articles, sometimes in a use that is different than "absurdity", I do not think an obscure album should be where the link for it takes a reader... Wait a minute, I am getting a communication from the spirit realm regarding starting articles outside of user space... Ok, Sir Francis Bacon has just sent me a message from the spirit realm and let me know he wants to weigh in on both absurdity and WP:Bold starting a stub Ridiculous (general use) article... "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity.". Well, then, I must reply to him that communication from the spirit realm from the father of empirical method is an incongruity so is absoultely "ridiculous, but not ridiculous", and "ridiculous but not ridiculous" is a Moore-ean absurdity, though not illogic, and not nonsense according to Wittgenstein, which uses both "ridiculous (general use)" and absurdity humorously to make a point ala Lewis Carroll (which is only marginally categorizeable as philosophy). If you don't get what I just said, and "see nothing", then as the Cheshire cat would say, "My, you must have good eyes", meaning "You don't have good eyes". What I just wrote is an absurdity, but not necessarily ridiculous (general use). Am I making myself clear as to why I did not use userspace, why I started separate articles for absurdity and Ridiculous (general use), and why Ridiculous (general use) is much more broad than ridiculous (philosphy)? PPdd (talk) 14:31, 12 February
 * Note- the following remark of mine is copied from my talk page, but also belongs here.


 * Ridiculous (general use) → Ridiculous
 * Or the plain name Ridiculous as the disambig page? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support dab page at Ridiculous and  (struck out PamD (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)) album at Ridiculous (album) - not sure what title is more appropriate for this "(general use)" article, perhaps "(philosophy)". It looks perilously near to WP:OR, and I'd challenge the idea that the phrase "from the sublime to the ridiculous" is anything to do with a miserable existence: it's commonly used, at least in British English, just to mean "what a contrast!", especially if a conversation etc moves rapidly from lofty matters to something down to earth, stupid, etc, or from excellent to bad in any field. Or as in one of the first ghits: "New Zealand's batsmen again showed they could veer from the sublime to the ridiculous in the first cricket test atChristchurch yesterday.". "General use" sounds like dictionary definitions: the article needs to be focussed into some area. So, there's a somewhat random collection of thoughts. (How did I get involved... ah yes, an unsortable stub yesterday I think!). PamD (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ridiculous (general use) was modified to try to address PamD's comments. (PamD, please check if the modification addressed your concerns.) PPdd (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Change of !vote: Now support move of Ridiculousness (formerly known as Ridiculous (general use)) to Ridiculous The article has made a lot of progress and is clearly about "the ridiculous", although as it's not a usage where we would capitalise the T as "The ridiculous" in common usage, we don't want to include the "The" in the article title. But the first words of the text are "The ridiculous", which seems fine. We just need to remember that it's a noun (as used since 1674, and OED notes that it's always used with "the"). "Ridiculousness" is  ... hmm, ridiculous, I suppose. PamD (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - " Ridiculousneses’nesses’ ", RS statement, RS example, or proposed entry for WP:BJAODN?... and try pronouncing it! PPdd (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but shouldn't this article actually be at either ridicule or ridiculousness? Powers T 15:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Move Ridiculous to Ridiculous (album) and Ridiculous (disambiguation) to Ridiculous (agreeing with PamD). This obscure album is certainly not the primary topic, but I'd prefer to keep ridiculous a dab page referring also to Wiktionary. Ucucha 20:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Move 1.) Ridiculous → Ridiculous (album), 2.) Ridiculous (general use) → Ridiculous, and 3.) keep Ridiculous (disambiguation) as hat on Ridiculous - for reasons I stated above. PPdd (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt it - the first is a different concept, the second a clumsy word which doesn't convey the same thing. I wonder if the article should be at "The ridiculous", but I think I'd settle for it at "Ridiculous" now in its improved form, moving dab page to Ridiculous (disambiguation). On a point of related interest: the film called "Ridicule", the only article of that name, was moved, I think misguidedly, to Ridicule (film) (by an editor who didn't change any of the incoming links, and who didn't do anything else with "Ridicule" having made it into a redirect by doing the move.) I've moved it back, so the film is now at Ridicule.  I'lll do some more tidying of the main dab page, as I'm not sure Ridicule should be there. PamD (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to create a stub with a little RS content for ridicule (pejoritive) (or something like that), since sooner or later editors will link with square bracket around "ridicule". I am an expert at being ridiculous (I went from 11 years of mathematics at stanf to joining a circus and teaching clown class, and actually studied about it and absurdity, and collect books about both), but I don't know much at all about ridicule, even though I am the object of it daily. PPdd (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As an avocation, I lectured on international cinema for 8 years at stanf, and was constantly irritated at French cinema folks, who insisted on retaining the french title for their films, and keeping the french pronunciation when the french and english names were the same. I would ridicule this insitance by renaming Ridicule to be Roasting, my own english translation, in my syllabus, if I was still in the business. PPdd (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have opposed the original proposal but, since some moves have already been made, keep the Ridiculous dab page if others want. Oppose redirecting ridiculous to Ridiculousness.  That article, despite its length is not even about a coherent topic.  It references sources that merely use a "ridiculous" as a descriptive when dealing with other subjects.  In the end, despite its relative obscurity, the Squeeze album is the only notable topic called "Ridiculous".  —   AjaxSmack   19:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Collapsed bot section

 * Can I suggest that we ignore this message from the bot and keep all the discussion here on this talk page? PamD (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted the bot sections, and collapsed this one. PPdd (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ridiculous (general use) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)