Talk:Inside director
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Kjkolb in topic Merging with executive director
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merging with executive director
editInside director is a somewhat broader term which includes executive directors, as far as I am aware. II | (t - c) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all. An Executive Director is most commonly title for the CEO of an NGO or nonprofit organization. Has nothing to do with the Board of Directors. If an Executive Director serves on the Board of Directors, then they are an inside director. If they do not, then they aren't a member of the Board of Directors at all. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The non-executive director article attests to the fact that executive director is often a term for inside directors who are executives. With that said, I agree that the term gets used quite a bit. I do wonder if we should merge corporate titles which are synonyms in practice rather than creating duplicate articles - for example, managing director is also described as a CEO and executive director is described as a CEO of a nonprofit. None of these are really true; in some organizations MDs and executive directors are just senior mid-level managers. I'd prefer that we merged these articles into something like senior management to the degree that these words describe top management, with middle management incorporating the use of the title for mid-level management. We can use disambig pages to direct these titles to the proper pages. II | (t - c) 07:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: Agree with Noraft. Not at all the same thing. The same person may have both positions, but they are different positions. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: despite incorrect usage, they have different meanings. However, I am open to the idea of merging multiple articles for terms that are used interchangeably in practice, as long as the articles are all merged at the same time, and the technical differences between each term are explained. I would probably write a paragraph or two for each term. I suggest that a proposal for redirecting all of the terms to a new article be made. If the proposal gains consensus, a new combined article would be written, perhaps incorporating any good content from the existing articles, preferably with inline citations. If this is not done, I suggest noting what terms used interchangeably in their separate articles, with an explanation of how the definitions are different. -- Kjkolb (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)