Talk:Chairperson

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Chairperson" is now at Talk:Chairperson/Old history. There is also interesting page history at Chairman (version 2) and talk:Chairman (version 2). Graham87 11:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The latter history is now at Chairman and Talk:Chairman after this discussion. Graham87 00:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@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)

@MJL: Cool, thanks. Graham87 10:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

First line sequence

It is my opinion, with all due respect, that this reversal goes too far. Who, if anyone, relatively, uses "chair" as a noun for this position? Must we have such weird sequence for the commonly used terms, when we all know that chairman still is #1? So, some people, seemingly very emotionally involved, want to exclude the word completely. Is that we're supposed to be doing? Or is it neutral info we aspire to? Can we get a grip here, please, for Wikipedia's sake, not for mine?! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Who, if anyone, relatively, uses "chair" as a noun for this position? well, the Wikimedia Foundation for one. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Key word you apparently ignored: relatively. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation for one. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote relatively. Anyone who doesn't don't know what the word means can look it up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well your sentence doesn't make much sense if you just mean "is there anyone who uses chair more than chairman" because not only did we have a move discussion advertised on WP:CENT where this was discussed extensively, but it's an amazingly weak argument that requires just one example to refute it. I use chair more often than chairman. There, your point is refuted. I assumed you had some more cogent point than "I don't believe there is a single person who uses chair more than chairman". So I assumed you were just using the word "relatively" wrong and ignored it. Then you doubled down, so I thought you meant "uses chair in relation to the position", but now you seem to be saying that interpretation is wrong. So clearly it's my fault for thinking you were making a good point. If you want to know why the sequence is as it is, I suggest you scroll up and read the not even month old discussions conveniently titled Lead sentence and Lead sentence ranked survey, one of which I linked to in the edit summary of the revert you link to. After that I hope you have some more insightful point than "I can't believe other people have different opinions than me". Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 16:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree chair is now used more frequently than chairperson and should be first in that list. Plus, that way it's alphabetical too (chair, chairman, chairwoman). --В²C ☎ 23:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait. If you simply go by usage then chairman should be first in that list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

How are you determining current, usage? Since “me too”. —В²C ☎ 05:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Rotating chair listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rotating chair. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Chairmanic listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chairmanic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Move to Chairman

When will new users (or users who were not able to participate in the last discussion) be able to have their say on moving this article to the much more widely used 'Chairman'. I notice that this issue was raised on 9 June 2019 by a user, but that it was quickly closed down by Wugapodes on 10 June 2019 because it was 'unlikely that consensus has changed'. That is fair enough at the time. I would not want to re-open this case for it to be speedily closed again, so when would an appropriate time be to re-open the discussion? Are we talking three or six months? Or nearer to a year?

I know of many individuals on Wikipedia who would support the move to the correct term of 'Chairman' and would provide a much stronger argument for the move than the ones provided by some in the previous discussion. Poiuytre (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Poiuytre: probably a year because I know a good portion of folks here want to move this to Chair (executive) or Chair (officer) in 6 months. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no set rule but the longer the better. If a number of new people are weighing in on the talk page objecting to the reasons from last time then a good case could be made for opening sooner rather than later. Do keep in mind that, fair or not, right or wrong, the current title will now be seen as the default choice so unless there is a new consensus for a change this title will stay. If those same people had offered support during the move discussion the outcome might have been no consensus and the original title would have stayed. I don't see any reason why the question of "Chair (officer)" etc would have to be addressed before revisiting the name of this article. Perhaps as courtesy but not by policy. Springee (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

We must wait for the current pulpy carcass to slowly decay and a fresh equine carcass to be procured. Only then can we resume this discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, this absolutely perfect example of exactly what Wikipedia is not supposed to do (trend set à la latest move) should be reversed asap. It's not only very embarrassing to the project, disastrously bad for it's reputation as attemptedly neutral, it's also a horrific precendent for more of these kind of opinionated shenanigans to go on and on and on, spinning, not reporting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

PS I am not a bigot. Several of my friends & acquaintances have been chairwomen, and I've been very particular about always calling them what they want to be called. This is about what's normal, not what's courteous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think this is about, the reality is that there are three arguably reasonable choices, counting some variant of a disambiguated Chair as one of them, and that too many believe Chairman is no longer the common name for the generic board/committee/council/etc. head position this article is about for it to ever achieve consensus support again. That said I’m against a moratorium of any kind for any title change consideration, but there is definitely no consensus for that opinion, sadly. —В²C ☎ 09:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Remember that it took three attempts back to back before enough !votes could be mustered to change this to the politically correct variant. I'm sure that any attempt to revert will be met with the same "vote until you get it right" approach, so please, let's not start on a doomed path. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)