| Revision as of 22:07, 21 September 2005 editGettingtoit (talk | contribs)6,869 editsm 3r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:12, 27 August 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,614,193 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| There are a number of users inserting links to a card game called Ambition. The edit summaries have been rude and there is an appearance of spam. Please establish on this page why these links should be included, before reinserting them into the article. Thanks. ] ] 17:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{oldmergefull | |||
| | otherpage = Ambition (disambiguation) | |||
| | date = 24 February 2012 | |||
| | result = merge | |||
| | talk=Talk:Ambition (disambiguation)#Merge proposal | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Archive== | |||
| ] | |||
| The previous comments have been moved to the archive, linked above. The recent history has been only reverts and re-reverts, with nothing substantially new in the past month and no connection to the article page itself. -- ] 05:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You might want to familarise yourself with the history of ] and ] before wading into this one. ] ] 17:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I only added the Card Game because it had been referenced in another article, linking to this disambig page. I have no other knowledge of it. I guess the other page should have the link removed instead then, and possibly the reference removed, if it really is sufficiently unnotable enough to have been AfD'd. ] 04:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Card game == | |||
| :The rude edit summaries have been coming from ], of whom it should be duly noted is on the same side as yours in the revert war. | |||
| There should be an article on the card game, seperate from this one. Yeah people do play it independently of him, and it is taken seriously. It's not as widespread as Bridge and he shouldn't be saying it is, and the article should be NPOV and all that, but it is somewhat important. At the least, Misplaced Pages is not paper. ] 18:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a pretty well-established card game. It has an entry in ], and a discrete fan base in several cities. It's not spam. ] 02:28 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, and so I'm adding it, with just a brief, harmless mention. I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of the past two years. As long as the game's inventor stays away from the debate, I don't see that this is harmful. | |||
| ::I know one or more people is being an idiot by creating lots of usernames calling people nazi etc, but I do wonder if they have a bit of a point. In the original VfD debate, there was a clear vote to keep. It came round for a second vote (by which time VfD had got a lot more deletionist) and got deleted. It has some (not much but some) notability. Why not have a short article on the darn thing rather than to "punish" someone for trying to push their game by holding it to higher inclusion standards than other areas of the encyclopedia. ] ] 08:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I've seen this game played twice: once in Ann Arbor, once in San Diego. I don't think it's widespread or has any right to be presented as a widely popular game, but it's certainly notable by the rather inclusive definition Misplaced Pages uses. ] 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm actually fairly 'inclusionist', myself, and wouldn't have voted to delete the original article. I do, however, dislike external links -- we're an encyclopedia, not a link directory, and I really feel that the card game should have an article rather than just getting an external link to their private site. For now, though, I've removed the link to the blog and left the one to the rules, which is a site far more appropriate to link to from an encyclopedia. I've also fixed the "External link" header; "link" should not be capitalized. ] ] 05:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Misplaced Pages community voted to delete the card game's article. This means that external links are also not OK. The purpose of a disambig page is to link to articles - not to circumvent the deletion policy. ] 00:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Do not allow this self-advertiser fool you. I found this article while participating on an unrelated college message board. This individual endlessly proclaimed the greatness and poularity of this game especially at its epicenter, Carleton, his college. Another Carleton poster asserted his claim is a fabrication. That's just one source, but I think his bizarre behavior spanning five accounts attests to how tirelessly he works to promote the popular "appearance" of his game. We can't allow him to shove his vanity links onto the page. | 06:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh boy. Let me first explain that I don't like being the bearer of bad news, and so it's ''extremely'' painful for me to have to tell you that you're wrong. You said: "This means that external links are also not OK." No. It doesn't. | |||
| This user has started to harass me on the unrelated forum. I request he be blocked if at all possible. | 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are plenty of historical examples of articles on relatively non-notable blogs and forums, which were deleted, while at the same time external links to them were tolerated and even encouraged. So, you're wrong by precedent. It pains me to say this but... '''PWN3D!''' ] 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consensus is that deletion votes hold for 6 months. The last deletion debate was in September, so it still stands. Ha! | |||
| :Google of Ambition "card game" yields results on pagat.com, cardschat, boardgamegeek, GameBlog, and many other websites. This is more than enough. ] 18:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Anyone who's enough of a prick to name a card game "Ambition" deserves to get slammed-- pun in-fucking-tended. | |||
| ::The cynic in me reckons the people pushing the game on this website could've done the same on those too. Is that reasonable? ] ] 19:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::The more ya know. ] 18:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I removed a message from ] that responded to ]. It was full of personal attacks and not appropriate. However, it did argue against some of lotsofissues's points, so if you care to see the message, you may check the history. ] ] 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Haha, the name... my dad had similar thoughts and encouraged me to change it. I considered "Abacus", since the game involves a lot of counting. From a PR perspective, the name of the game was probably not ideally chosen, given how many people it has irked. Then again, the fact that I invented a parlor game for hobby already outs my breeding and math-nerdiness-- the two things that have a historical tendency to make the L-F's hate me-- so there ya go. | |||
| :Mike Church is blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly removing a comment which was not a personal attack against him. Calling Mike a "self-promoter" is not a personal attack. Mike's accusation that lotsofissues is a "poorly bred underachiever" is a personal attack, of course. Mike's alleged self-promotion is the issue here; Making cracks about other people's ancestry is off-topic and rude. ] 20:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I like your ''pun''ishment, by the way, but it's better if you don't point it out. ] 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi sockpuppets, == | |||
| == Continuous card game reversions == | |||
| Please stop adding the card game to this page. Thanks. ] 16:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| With all this that is made of the card game, Ambition, including the reversions to a prior form of the article, I say this: The game's notable. There's a pretty substantial BoardGameGeek entry, and enough web literature to indicate that people play it outside of the designer's immediate circle. Thus, it's an actual game of moderate prominence. Someone needs to write up a thorough, NPOV, article on the thing. | |||
| This is a sockpuppet, but not one of ]. Given the controversy associated with the game, I prefer not to be identified. ] 20:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Magus: I think you should leave the article as it is. I don't know who keeps toggling ]; I'm sure a lot of people think it's me, but it's not. I'd rather have some reference to the game, since it is notable, but it's not worth the trouble of fighting for it. Not many people are going to become interested in the game because of a Misplaced Pages article anyway. | |||
| : If you really want, you should put an NPOV article in your namespace and allow people to critique it, even edit it perhaps (since they will anyway, once it's written). Expect another VfD; it's had three or four of those. In fact, I'll probably VfD an Ambition article if I see one, just to start the debate on the proper foot. You should also do it under your main account, because no one's going to put an iota of trust in a sockpuppet. ] 03:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Redirect== | |||
| Why does this redirect to motivation? They are two different (albeit not completely) things. ] 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Ambition == | |||
| Ambition is the desire to acheive a goallllllllllllllllllllll. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> abe sahi ans to batao ???? | |||
| ==The Bible on Ambition== | |||
| The Bible has quite a lot to say about ambition, both "good" (e.g., Romans 15:20, Nehemiah 2:5 and 1 Thessalonians 4:11) and "bad" (e.g., Isaiah 14:13, 3 John 1:9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4). The latter is typically associated with selfish motives (Galatians 5:20, Philippians 2:3). ] (]) 02:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == "Ambition seduces, Power corrupts" == | |||
| This is not a quote from Oscar Wilde. It appears to be a Movie tag line. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Merge proposal == | |||
| {{Discussion top|1=The result was '''merge''' into Ambition (disambiguation). -- ] (]) 17:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| I propose that ] be merged into ]. The current ] page is merely a ], doesn't contain any real encyclopaedic content, and wouldn't survive PROD if it stood alone. My understanding of the current disambiguation rules is that the dab page should have "(disambiguation)" in the title, so my proposal would involve replacing ] with a redirect to the dab page, and possibly including a brief definition of the word on the dab page (but no further content). This is on the assumption that there isn't a primary meaning for "Ambition" (apart from the dicdef) - if there is (the card game, perhaps?) then we should move that article to ] instead. ] (]) 21:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as nominator. ] (]) 21:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - whenever I type this in, I'm looking for ]. ] (]) 03:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{Discussion bottom}} | |||
Latest revision as of 14:12, 27 August 2024
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with Ambition (disambiguation) on 24 February 2012. The result of the discussion was merge. |
Archive
The previous comments have been moved to the archive, linked above. The recent history has been only reverts and re-reverts, with nothing substantially new in the past month and no connection to the article page itself. -- Curps 05:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- I only added the Card Game because it had been referenced in another article, linking to this disambig page. I have no other knowledge of it. I guess the other page should have the link removed instead then, and possibly the reference removed, if it really is sufficiently unnotable enough to have been AfD'd. Fieari 04:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Card game
There should be an article on the card game, seperate from this one. Yeah people do play it independently of him, and it is taken seriously. It's not as widespread as Bridge and he shouldn't be saying it is, and the article should be NPOV and all that, but it is somewhat important. At the least, Misplaced Pages is not paper. 144.92.104.49 18:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, and so I'm adding it, with just a brief, harmless mention. I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of the past two years. As long as the game's inventor stays away from the debate, I don't see that this is harmful.
- I've seen this game played twice: once in Ann Arbor, once in San Diego. I don't think it's widespread or has any right to be presented as a widely popular game, but it's certainly notable by the rather inclusive definition Misplaced Pages uses. 69.95.52.131 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages community voted to delete the card game's article. This means that external links are also not OK. The purpose of a disambig page is to link to articles - not to circumvent the deletion policy. Rhobite 00:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh boy. Let me first explain that I don't like being the bearer of bad news, and so it's extremely painful for me to have to tell you that you're wrong. You said: "This means that external links are also not OK." No. It doesn't.
- There are plenty of historical examples of articles on relatively non-notable blogs and forums, which were deleted, while at the same time external links to them were tolerated and even encouraged. So, you're wrong by precedent. It pains me to say this but... PWN3D! Mike Church 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Consensus is that deletion votes hold for 6 months. The last deletion debate was in September, so it still stands. Ha!
- Anyone who's enough of a prick to name a card game "Ambition" deserves to get slammed-- pun in-fucking-tended.
- The more ya know. Wackypedia 18:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Haha, the name... my dad had similar thoughts and encouraged me to change it. I considered "Abacus", since the game involves a lot of counting. From a PR perspective, the name of the game was probably not ideally chosen, given how many people it has irked. Then again, the fact that I invented a parlor game for hobby already outs my breeding and math-nerdiness-- the two things that have a historical tendency to make the L-F's hate me-- so there ya go.
- I like your punishment, by the way, but it's better if you don't point it out. Mike Church 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Continuous card game reversions
With all this that is made of the card game, Ambition, including the reversions to a prior form of the article, I say this: The game's notable. There's a pretty substantial BoardGameGeek entry, and enough web literature to indicate that people play it outside of the designer's immediate circle. Thus, it's an actual game of moderate prominence. Someone needs to write up a thorough, NPOV, article on the thing.
This is a sockpuppet, but not one of User:Mike Church. Given the controversy associated with the game, I prefer not to be identified. Magus Zeal 20:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Magus: I think you should leave the article as it is. I don't know who keeps toggling Ambition; I'm sure a lot of people think it's me, but it's not. I'd rather have some reference to the game, since it is notable, but it's not worth the trouble of fighting for it. Not many people are going to become interested in the game because of a Misplaced Pages article anyway.
- If you really want, you should put an NPOV article in your namespace and allow people to critique it, even edit it perhaps (since they will anyway, once it's written). Expect another VfD; it's had three or four of those. In fact, I'll probably VfD an Ambition article if I see one, just to start the debate on the proper foot. You should also do it under your main account, because no one's going to put an iota of trust in a sockpuppet. Mike Church 03:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect
Why does this redirect to motivation? They are two different (albeit not completely) things. 84.108.245.222 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ambition
Ambition is the desire to acheive a goallllllllllllllllllllll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.218.86 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC) abe sahi ans to batao ????
The Bible on Ambition
The Bible has quite a lot to say about ambition, both "good" (e.g., Romans 15:20, Nehemiah 2:5 and 1 Thessalonians 4:11) and "bad" (e.g., Isaiah 14:13, 3 John 1:9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4). The latter is typically associated with selfish motives (Galatians 5:20, Philippians 2:3). 173.13.243.121 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"Ambition seduces, Power corrupts"
This is not a quote from Oscar Wilde. It appears to be a Movie tag line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.235.123 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Merge proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was merge into Ambition (disambiguation). -- Tevildo (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose that Ambition be merged into Ambition (disambiguation). The current Ambition page is merely a DICDEF, doesn't contain any real encyclopaedic content, and wouldn't survive PROD if it stood alone. My understanding of the current disambiguation rules is that the dab page should have "(disambiguation)" in the title, so my proposal would involve replacing Ambition with a redirect to the dab page, and possibly including a brief definition of the word on the dab page (but no further content). This is on the assumption that there isn't a primary meaning for "Ambition" (apart from the dicdef) - if there is (the card game, perhaps?) then we should move that article to Ambition instead. Tevildo (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support - whenever I type this in, I'm looking for The Sims 3: Ambitions. Zach Vega (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)