This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Parliamentary ProcedureWikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureTemplate:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureParliamentary Procedure articles
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
Chairman → Chairperson, moved (
7 January 2006, no discussion)
@
Graham: I've went ahead and moved
it to
Chair (executive) just because I wanted to give this page history renewed life in the mainspace. Cheers, –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 07:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I think these pages ought not be moved around. It has made tracing the history almost impossible.
SarahSV(talk) 18:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
This is quite confusing. Why is the history split up? Was there a cut-and-paste move?
Jonathunder (
talk) 18:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, it's very confusing. What didn't the history just stay with the articles as they were moved? --
В²C☎ 18:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
There were several articles and talk pages, and it seems some were merged. After the latest move, I began trying to trace the history so that we could list the histories chronologically. But then someone made another move, so I gave up, and now yet another. I've objected to the latest at
User talk:DannyS712.
SarahSV(talk) 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SarahSV: Can you email me a copy of all the deleted redirects? I'll make a graph. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 18:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SlimVirgin and
Born2cycle: Actually nevermind. Sorry for the double ping, but there were freaking cut and paste moves involved in this. I give up now. I say we delete
Talk:Chairman and move
Talk:Chairman (old) back there without leaving a redirect. That's how it was before Slash Red moved it. That'll sort most everything out. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 19:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I think I support deleting the current
Talk:Chairman since it is brand new, but I want to understand why
Red Slash did that. Why not delete it, and move
Talk:Chairman (old) back to
Talk:Chairman? What's wrong with a redirect (like
Chairman now is) having a talk page with lots of history? --
В²C☎ 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The move discussed
here should be reverted in my view. It was at that point that I gave up trying to trace the history.
SarahSV(talk) 19:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Let's just
WP:IAR and do it. SarahSV you have my full support to do whatever you think will get this train back onto a sensible track. Nothing make sense now, and consensus can change. Let's go back to how it used to be with the implausible redirects that were matched properly with their talk page. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 20:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
MJL, I've been active here as an editor, so I don't want to use the tools, and the situation is so complex, I'd have to spend days looking at the histories. There are more than just the above. When you look at the deletion logs, you find people moving things around, going back years, for no obvious reason. We have regular page moves, merges, and cut-and-paste moves. Whatever we do, let's not rush it in case we make it worse.
SarahSV(talk) 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
MOS
Does anyone know if the usage of chair/-man/-woman/-person is specifically discussed in the MOS somewhere? IIRC, the usual rule in articles such as those on companies is to use the title which that company uses, whichever it is. However, I can't find any documentation of this. Thanks.
BilCat (
talk) 04:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I would argue that "Chair", "Chairman", and "Chairwoman" are distinct titles, and therefore it is inaccurate to use a title other than what the company uses. --
Ahecht (
TALK PAGE) 04:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that's basically what I thought. Should something about that be added to
WP:GNL?
BilCat (
talk) 06:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 19 September 2022
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: not moved. There is clear consensus against
Chair (officer), mostly on
natural-disambiguation grounds. There's some interest in moving the page back to
Chairman, but that suggestion didn't receive sufficient discussion for me to be able to evaluate consensus; if there's a serious desire to revisit
the 2019 RM, feel free to follow 65.92.247.226's advice and start a new discussion focused solely on that issue. (
closed by non-admin page mover)
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Chairperson → Chair (officer) – It seems to me if we're not going to use chairman, then we ought to adopt the increasingly frequent alternative Chair. "Chairperson" just doesn't read or sound natural, although it is used, chair (office(r)/position etc.) would appear to be a more encyclopedic title than chairperson. The previous move did suggest that it would be worth discussing a more suitable title. and enough time has passed since then to reflect on a better title for the page. Also open to suggestions.
Tærkast (
Discuss) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A chair is a piece of furniture. I would support moving the article to the most common term, which is "Chairman", but if that isn't acceptable to others, then the gender neutral term "Chairperson" is what should be used for the title. "Chairperson" is also preferable for the title over "Chair (officer)" due to
WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION reasons. Injecting a parenthetical disambiguator into the title when one isn't needed is bad article titling.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 04:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I too would support
Chairman, which until fairly recently was always used for both men and women, but if that's opposed then better to use the common "Chairperson" than an unneccessarily disambiguated term. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I disagree that "Chair (officer)" is bad article titling or an unnecessarily disambiguate term. If Chair is more frequently used, as an alternative to Chairman, than Chairperson, why shouldn't it be so? A simple Google search is enough to show that Chair is far more common than Chairperson, so should
WP:COMMONNAME not prevail as well? It all appears to be how you interpret the policy on article titles. Chairperson reads and sounds unnatural. If people want to move it back to chairman, I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to that but Chairperson ought not to be the title. --
Tærkast (
Discuss) 19:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I think it comes down to how one wants to interpret and apply the policies pertaining to article titles. As I've said, I politely disagree with the statement that "Chair (officer)" or other such alternative is bad article titling, however, Wikipedia certainly isn't worth getting all worked up over. Let the chips fall where they may. --
Tærkast (
Discuss) 20:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
While "Chairman" is by far the best choice, there is nothing wrong with "Chair (officer)." No one uses what we have now.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 21:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree with you that "chairman" is the best choice of title; however, it's completely false that no one uses "chairperson". And interestingly, according to the Google Ngrams, "chairperson" is actually more used than "chairwoman".
[1] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rreagan007 (
talk •
contribs) 06:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Nobody said that "Chairperson" isn't used, in fact, I know the South African government often uses the title chairperson, however, it is far less common than Chair or indeed chairman. --
Tærkast (
Discuss) 17:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Nobody said that? Then what did Fyunck(click) mean when he said that "No one uses what we have now."? Regardless, the current title is a good use of natural disambiguation so we dont' have to resort to a parenthetical disambiguator. But I would still prefer moving the article to the most common term, which is "Chairman".
Rreagan007 (
talk) 21:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Ok, I should have been more precise rather than an overall message. It is hardly ever used. In my dealings with people no one uses it. It's Chairman or sometimes simply Chair. Certainly Chairperson is used more than Chairwoman. In the last discussion I thought you were on the side of Chair (officer) rather than Chairperson? My memory could be wrong and we all can change our minds upon reflection of the evidence. But I would go with Chairman also. Cheers.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 21:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, indeed I was. But in the years that have followed that previous discussion, I have become much more of a proponent of using natural disambiguation in article titles. "Chairperson" might not be used very much, but it is still quite recognizable as a gender-neutral term for "chairman". I would still prefer "Chairman" as the title, but "Chairperson" is a preferable title to me than "Chair (disambiguator)".
Rreagan007 (
talk) 00:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
In my dealings it's used a lot but more significantly
in a previous discussion when I dug through Google New hits there was usage for men holding the role in a large number of English speaking countries but notably the only hit for US usage was a student newspaper.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose: while both 'Chair' and 'Chairperson' are
WP:COMMONNAMEs,
WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION makes 'Chairperson' a better article title than 'Chair (officer)'. Also oppose a move to 'Chairman' per the extensive reasoning in
the previous RM that moved the article from 'Chairman' to its current title. I don't see anything that has changed since then that would justify moving it back.
GreenComputer (
talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Companies, parliamentary bodies etc by and large either use chair or chairman, we shouldn't be using an article title that doesn't reflect general usage. It seems to me the opposition is more for seemingly cosmetic reasons than anything else, based on one particular section of a general policy page. There is more than one
criteria for determining an article's title. --
Tærkast (
Discuss) 15:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Commnet if someone wants to move it to "
chairman" I believe that a new move request should be opened, as people uninterested in the difference beteen "Chair" and "Chairperson" may be interested in the difference between "Chairperson" and "Chariman"; as there are different issues involved in the different new page names --
65.92.247.226 (
talk) 05:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose, mild preference for Chairman Chairperson sounds odd and isn't used commonly. Chairman, per previous discussion is still the most common term. However, it is considered gendered so Chairperson was invented. In contextual speech I think "Chair" is better than Chairperson but I agree with the concerns related to natural disambiguation thus for the article title I prefer chairperson but would not suggest changing references to chair or chairman to chairperson. While I prefer chairman, I understand that some people feel moving to gender neutral terms and chairperson does do that hence I can understand why it makes sense for the article title.
Springee (
talk) 13:15, 24 September 2022 (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.