Talk:Battle of egos

Merge
This article has 100% overlap with Pissing contest. The material in pissing contest that overlaps need to be merged here.- Wolfkeeper  16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR A REDIRECT OR A DELETE


 * Oppose merge - these are similar but distinct phrases. –xenotalk 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's synonymous, that means they merge.- Wolfkeeper  16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For example look at apparent death; there the three different phrases are all in one article. They all mean very much the same thing. That's how phrases are treated in encyclopedias; similar meanings are kept together.- Wolfkeeper  16:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, I think they are distinct enough that they remain separate. If anything though, the merge should go in the other direction as the other article is more well-developed. –xenotalk 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Battles of egos do not necessarily take place in terms of stupendous feats of urination. Perhaps have a link to it for the metaphor part. I also would not mind if the current "pissing contest" article were split, though I'm not convinced enough about it to do it myself. Awickert (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is getting way beyond silly now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pissing contest is one form of Battle of egos, and one with enough notability to stand as an article on its own, as pointed out by consensus at the recent AfD. As for this on-going attempt to delete "Pissing contest" by hook or by crook, I would suggest moving on to more productive pursuits. There are many to be found hereabouts. Dekkappai (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for a complete merge; I'm saying move the half of the article from pissing contest to here. This is not a call for a redirect.- Wolfkeeper  20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that is a change from the initial "100%", so please date-stamp your newly-inserted comment above. Otherwise it makes the debate look baseless. Awickert (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, no, I read it wrong, but I was confused by the "merger" tag on "pissing contest". I get it now, sorry, Awickert (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Close
I move to close because this merger proposal was added 2 minutes after the AfD closed as keep, so seems to be an obvious attempt to overturn the AfD consensus via a new avenue. Sorry Wolfkeeper: we don't always get our way. Awickert (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. You are assuming AGF? Didn't think so. Or are you claiming that doing a merge would somehow cause a delete the other article? Frankly I don't agree, but I don't particularly care one way or another. All I know is there's only two kinds of discussion I get into in the Wikipedia; one's I win, and one's I haven't won yet; because I don't get into discussions where I'm not on the wikipedia's side. Currently pending discussions I haven't prevailed on: 0. I never give up; and I'm not kidding.- Wolfkeeper  20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a battleground with discussions to be "won" or "lost". –xenotalk 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is. I've seen policy makers quote things that paid shills had added that they probably unknowingly found in articles I was trying to get to be neutral.- Wolfkeeper  21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The timing made WP:AGF become much more difficult. Your new commentary on "winning" makes it next to impossible. Your assumption that you are always on "wikipedia's side", while laudable, seals the deal for me that you believe so strongly that you are right that there is no room for the views of others who (one would hope) also want to improve Wiki. Awickert (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You would have a good point if I didn't see plenty of evidence that the other people are acting improperly, and were well aware of the relevant rules.- Wolfkeeper  21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, those issues are too complex for me :-). Also, I see I made a mistake in assuming it was the article to be merged; I have moved the merger tag down to the specific section so others aren't confused by that. Awickert (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a call for a partial merge only.- Wolfkeeper  20:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still don't see the point. –xenotalk 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can believe that.- Wolfkeeper  21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "point" seems very clear; by hook or crook, Wolfkeeper wants his own way, no matter what the consensus may be. It is quite clear that this merge proposal is fundamentally flawed, as the term "battle of egos" is not synonymous with pissing contest. The essence of a pissing contest is its inherent pointlessness and triviality. If this article was at AfD, I'd be supporting its deletion; I don't see anything here worth merging anywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Black Knight always wins! Dekkappai (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the very discussion between Wolfkeeper and others is a pissing contest. In my opinion, the difference is the final outcome. In a pissing contest, both look very foolish and so pissing contests, usually initiated by weaker players, should be avoided by "taking the higher ground". Battle of Egos are the establishment of superiority.Rridlon (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)