Talk:Chairperson

message: 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  and talk:Chairman (version 2). Graham87 11:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter history is now at  and Talk:Chairman after this discussion. Graham87 00:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @: 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)
replies: text:  Cool, thanks. Graham87 10:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @: Can you email me a copy of all the deleted redirects? I'll make a graph. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: The literal talk page of this article is older than the article itself.  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I think I support deleting the current Talk:Chairman since it is brand new, but I want to understand why  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: There's also discussion at User talk:Cuchullain#Chairperson_page_history from May 2019. SarahSV (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Old page history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (TALKPAGE) 04:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's basically what I thought. Should something about that be added to WP:GNL? BilCat (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS  

message: :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)
replies: text: Chairperson →  – 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)
replies: text: Support Chairman --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Support Chairman --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

text: No, WP:COMMONNAME does not prevail over WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. And if we strictly want to go by the most common name for the article title, then the article should be moved to Chairman. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 September 2022