This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Games Unassessed (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Yes, Mike, you wrote this page, but you do not own it. Your game does not belong in such a general article, even if you wrote it mainly as an excuse to link your game. Isomorphic 08:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm amazed by your audacity.

Verified facts:

1. I wrote this page.

2. I linked to Ambition on this page.

Your conclusion: I wrote this page as an excuse (your words) to link to Ambition, as if I had no other motives.

Have I linked every page I've written to Ambition? No. Of course not. That would be inappropriate. I've kept well within the bounds of topicality. I could, theoretically, post a link to my game on any page, and then it would get a hell of a lot of hits. I could, theoretically, put " GO HERE! A GREAT CARD GAME!" at the top of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, knowing that page gets a lot of hits. But I don't, because it would be entirely tasteless, crass, wrong, insulting, and egregious attention-whoring.

This page is a different story, because the reference is actually useful to the article.

And no, I didn't write this page as an excuse to link to Ambition. I wrote this page to write the page, and linked to Ambition because I could while staying topical. Mike Church 08:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why does this exist? --Macarion 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah why does this exist? More importantly, however, I am linking sports players to this page as well. Player (game) shoud not just refer to card/board games, but to sports games as well. Can somebody please fix this? --Gregorof 01:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Player (video games) → Player (game) — Article was recently incorrectly moved from Player (game) to Player (gaming), then to Player (video games). Player of a board game may also be called "player", board game topic is covered by the article. Board game is rarely referred to as "gaming" and is not "video game". — Voidvector (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Looking at the talk above, this may have been an attempt to disambiguate from a sports "player". However I agree the new name is inappropriate to the article content. Have you discussed this with the editor who renamed the page? It's a shame he didn't leave an explanatory edit summary. --Rogerb67 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]