From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 17 July 2017 for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon

"Editor in chief" or "editor-in-chief"?[edit]

Both titles in the "Further reading" section hyphenate the phrase. Are there any more recent sources, and do they consistently hyphenate or not hyphenate the title? (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikt:editor-in-chief says the hyphenated version is an alternative spelling of editor in chief. The French hyphenated "rédacteur-en-chef" is incorrect, the unhyphenated way is the one (yes, there must be differences in rules on hyphenation between the two languages, but taking notice of the French term seems interesting at the very least.) --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The most authoritative usage reference is the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2005 edition) which unequivocally prescribes (at p. 183) -in-chief (hyphens). The AP Guidelines ruling offered below by an anonymous contributor may have limited validity for consistency within a 'house style', but lacks reliable general authority. I'm also changing this so as to be consistent with other WP entries, eg, Editor-at-large. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, editor in chief is specifically AP style, where a publication chooses to use that as the basis of house style. Hyphenation is best minimized, I think. To-day recently became today and to-morrow recently became tomorrow; we're unlikely to ever write editorinchief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioxinfreak (talkcontribs) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
"Editor in chief" is not hyphenated per rules in the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. By the way, to call a particular style guide the "most authoritative usage reference" is ridiculous; an organization gets to choose which style guide to use and that's the one to follow within that organization. In the U.S. publication industry, the "Chicago Manual of Style" is the most commonly used. -- (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

AP Guidelines on hyphenation of the title[edit]

The entry in the 2002 AP Stylebook regarding the hyphenating of the title is as follows:

"Editor in chief: Follow the style of the publication, but in general, no hyphens. Capitalize when used as a formal title before a name."

The entry in the 2014 AP Stylebook regarding the hyphenating of the title is as follows:

"editor-in-chief: Use hyphens and capitalize when used as a formal title before a name: Editor-in-Chief Horace Greeley. The hyphens, reflecting industry usage, are an exception to Webster's New World College Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to see a section on the etymology of using the term editor in chief, as opposed to managing editor, executive editor or otherwise. Why "chief"? Why "in chief?"

This is the editor in charge of the other editors; the chef, who supervises the kitchen, as opposed to the saucier, who only makes sauces. I propose we modify to editor in chef. Seriously tho, vis a vis executive editor in a publication which has both an EIC and an executive editor, the latter will be in charge of the editorial team. Some publications define the managing editor as someone with editorial authority but who also interfaces with the production department. This is a crucial role within a publication -- where content meets form, and the production process.
I would note that these definitions are not firmly defined. Every organization creates its own specific job description. And they are rapidly evolving as the newspaper world fades away and the inter/mixedmedia world takes over. Dioxinfreak (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I also would like to see the etymology. I know what editor-in-chief and commander-in-chief mean, but no-where can I find where the "in-chief" suffix came from. As far as the english language goes, it doesn't make sense to me. Especially when you could just say chief editor or chief commander (which seem more grammatically correct). Again, I am not looking to understand what editor-in-chief is, but where the "in-chief" comes from. Is it derived from another language? How far back does it go? Did "in-chief" used to be more common? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? The origin is of course French, which has en chef in exactly the same use – commander-in-chief is evidently a loan translation of commandant en chef. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor in chiefEditor-in-chief — For reasons stated by myself above, and for consistency Bjenks (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


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 policy on article titles.
  • Support; I find it hard to believe the non-hyphenated version is at all common due to the confusion and awkwardness that seems sure to result from its use in sentences. Powers T 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Responsibilities section is inaccurate[edit]

Hi Cousins,

I've held the title and the role (avoiding the title) of editor in chief a number of times, and I don't think that the description in this article is vaguely accurate, in terms of giving the real feeling of the job. While the EIC's responsibilities can include those things, most of them are usually delegated to sub-editors.

The EIC is more of a coordinating role among the other editors; it's a management position. In smaller publications it will be more hands-on, though in larger ones, the EIC's role is to delegate and coordinate (and yes to set policy). It's not merely a staff management position, it's a news management position, meaning that there are editorial priorities that need to be set from day to day.

The EIC will usually chair the editorial board, and is the main liaison to the publisher; and the editorial board's contact point with the corporate board if there is one. And the EIC will be a liaison to the political community and the business community in the publication's coverage area.

So, I don't think it makes sense to list things like editing articles as primary duties. These are the duties of an editor - not the editor in chief.

Dioxinfreak (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)