Talk:Trustee

message: I tried to link to this page to describe someone as a member of the board of Trustees for UNC.  But there's nothing here to explain that.  Is anyone aware of another page for that usage of Trustee? -Jcbarr 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Trust (law) USA or Charitable trust. Def here does fit as benificeries are student/general public. --Salix alba (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University Board of Trustees 

message: If they are not doing their job and have made several mistakes, how do you appoint someone else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Law Lady (talk • contribs) 2 Sept 06.
:Step 1 read the constitution, different orginisations have different rules. Step 2, make sure you have sufficient number of people on the board/candidates willing to take on the role, a charity with an inquorate board, is severely limited in its actions. Step 3, talk to the people concerned, they may be struggling. You may be able to hold an AGM, in fact there should be one each year. If things are really serious you can talk to the Charity Commission. --Salix alba (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you get rid of a trustee? 

message: Between appointing someone as a Trustee and granting them Power of Attorney?FredHerbert 09:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broadly, a power of attorney grants the attorney-in-fact specific power to do certain acts on behalf of (and in the name of) the grantor, but it is a purely personal power.  To constitute someone as your trustee, you must actually transfer the property to them, and they hold the property in their own name and manage it as your trustee.  However, the law regulates both activities on a fiduciary basis. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the difference 

message: The article is heavily systemically biased toward a US and, to a lesser extent, a UK point of view.  The first 2/3 of the article applies largely to the USA but there is no mention of this in the article text.  There is no exploration of how this term is used outside of the USA/UK or how it was used historically in these countries (e.g. city trustees). —  AjaxSmack  03:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article bias

message: This article was recently moved without discussion to a disambiguated term, with the primary topic title redirecting to the disambig page. This suggests that we need a discussion about whether this usage is in fact the primary topic for the term. My feeling is that it is, but perhaps someone can provide evidence supporting another usage being strong enough to require the disambig page to sit here. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Got the message on my talk page.  I made the changes agnostically to what the primary or most common meaning is, with a preference for directing all ambiguous titles to the disambiguation page.  I didn't realize that over 1000 pages would be affected by the link change -- sorry for any issues.  On one hand, I think that having the ambiguous title go the the disambiguation page and updating the links to go the new title of the same article -- if the links can be updated efficiently like with a bot -- is a good idea, because we can assume that those links did indeed intend to go to that page (the legal meaning), and if they were linking to that meaning incorrectly in the first place, then making this change would merely keep the error the same; it wouldn't introduce any new errors.  That being said, the important thing is that the newly-added disambiguation cross-references are all still there including at the top of this page, and biasing an ambiguous title towards one default meaning is a common practice on Wikipedia anyway, so no information is lost by reconfiguring the ambiguous title this way.  --Wykypydya (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I also want to add: Even if it's decided that the ambiguous title ("Trustee") should go to this article, I still believe this article should still be under the disambiguated title as its proper title, and the ambiguous title ("trustee") should redirect to it, rather than the other way around.  Then it should have a "redirect" template saying that "Trustee" redirects here, etc.  I'll make that change now because I don't see how at least that will cause an issue...  --Wykypydya (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, "Trustee" and "Trustee (legal)" have now been swapped.  Now we can talk about which article "Trustee" should redirect to.  --Wykypydya (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it seems we have all agreed that the primary topic for "Trustee" is the legal relationship, Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation expresses a policy preference that this article should be located at "Trustee". Since there has been no discussion in support of having it at another title, I will be moving it back, unless someone would like to present evidence demonstrating that the legal meaning is not the primary topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

text:  I have added a citation and reference that supports the proposition that "Trustee" is an umbrella term that encompasses all of the kinds of trustees reflected on the disambig page. bd2412 T 16:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  As there has been no argument or evidence offered countering the proposition that the legal sense is the primary meaning of Trustee, I will now move the page back there in accordance with our policy preference at Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary topic and disambiguation status 

message: Unless I have overlooked something, the meaning of a Trustee as a prisoner in a position of relative trust is completely missing from the wiki, including on the disambiguation page. They still exist, as can be seen from the recent scandal involving haley barbour. Below is a basic definition. This definitely needs to have a full article written about it.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090103163556AAkcZWy Grrbrown (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing meaning 

message: I recommend reverting to the edit of 14 July 2023. An anonymous user appears to have messed this article up repeatedly. Al Begamut (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit reversion