Talk:Ambition (character trait)

Requested move 14 May 2025

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: no consensus. withdrawn with no supporting arguments, and the only oppose noting that changes to the article may change their decision(closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 12:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Ambition (character trait) → Ambition – I think this is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over everything else listed at the disambiguation page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose So small as to go against WP:DICDEF. My opinion may change if the article were drastically expanded as a WP:BROADCONCEPT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm: I actually think that's way more doable than it might be with other articles, ambition as a trait has actually been written about a lot, especially in certain contexts. I have some sources I posted earlier today down below if you're interested in taking a look. The best one is probably the first one as it's a journal ref. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Well it's not really about whether I think the potential is there, but if it ever actually gets expanded into a full article. I don't doubt it has the potential, but right now it's not ready. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm: I figured that's what you were implying. My comment was more of an open invitation if you were interested in working on the article. I'll probably take a go at it sometime soon myself, but it's okay if you're not interested. Do you want a ping if I actually end up following through on those plans? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, please do. If it's still within the time of the discussion I may change my opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm: I'm working 56 hours this week so I don't think this is something I can realistically get to within the timeframe of a move discussion. I'm okay with withdrawing and postponing this discussion for when I expand it, if that's alright with everyone else? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Wait. I think a very strong article could be written at this title, but it has yet to scratch the surface. I would suggest withdrawing this proposal, working on the article for a few weeks, and then re-proposing the move after there is four or five times the content as there is now. BD2412 T 02:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

Possible sources

This article sucks right now but I think it has potential to be better. For example, there could be a section about gender roles as there's been a lot of coverage in RSes about that.

Here are some possible sources:

• Understanding the Impact of Context on Ambition: Gender Role Conformity Negatively Influences Adolescent Boys’ Ambition Scores in an Educational Context – this source goes into a fascinating level of detail on the different ways of defining ambition as well as research on adolescents
• How gender stereotypes are hurting women on maternity leave – I'm a Globe and Mail subscriber so feel free to contact me if you need access to this one; from a quick skim it goes into the stereotype that women are less ambitious at work.
• Americans Now Believe Women Are as Competent as Men—but Not as Ambitious – years of polling data but American-specific
• Forget the ambition gap, it's the ‘ambition penalty’ that's really holding women back at work – This source goes into the "ambition gap" and "ambition penalty" (ambition being perceived as a positive trait in men and a negative one in women).

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)