Talk:Ambition

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

This article was nominated for merging with Ambition (disambiguation) on 24 February 2012. The result of the discussion was merge.

Archive[edit]

Card game[edit]

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, Wikipedia is not paper. 144.92.104.49 18:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia uses. 69.95.52.131 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Continuous card game reversions[edit]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Why does this redirect to motivation? They are two different (albeit not completely) things. 84.108.245.222 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambition[edit]

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 ????[reply]

The Bible on Ambition[edit]

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)[reply]

"Ambition seduces, Power corrupts"[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - whenever I type this in, I'm looking for The Sims 3: Ambitions. Zach Vega (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.