Talk:Manager (disambiguation)

Untitled

" manager " could be mean ' powerful people' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.124.1.45 (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MANAGER- A PERSON WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MANAGE A TEAM OR AN ENERPRISES TO ACHIVE CERTAIN GOAL, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.46.27 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. It might be useful to expand Management into even more of a broad-concept article, such as sports usage. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manager → Manager (disambiguation) – Redirect Manager to Management per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 16:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose without further evidence. There are several different important encyclopedic meanings of "manager" listed on the dab page, some which are not related to business. Why is "(business) management" primary? — AjaxSmack 14:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the original concept which all forms of management derived. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Original concept" has little bearing on whether a topic is the primary topic. (It's been discounted in other RMs; usage and long-term significance are more important.) But even considering it, I see no evidence that the activities of various sports managers can be seen as originating from the relatively new field of business management. — AjaxSmack 14:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification ... since yes, I meant "long-term usage". Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, several of the various uses, including business management, seem to have been around for about a century give or take so I don't see where one is primary in that sense. The idea of football or baseball managers don't seem to have been derived from business management. — AjaxSmack 15:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but ... Isn't the topic you are referring to covered in the article Supervisor? I'm trying to figure this out since I see what you are saying, and I would imagine that there would be a concept article of some sort that refers to the topic you refer to that is distinct from the subject of the article Management. I mean, at this point, I am even wondering if Management itself needs to be moved... Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, disregard all of that. I had to review Management a few times, and it really does look like it is intended to be a broad concept article. My original position stands. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current management article approaches the topic from a specific Anglo-American perspective of management as a science and field of study in the traditions of Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management, Peter Drucker, & al. When someone seeks information on a manager, I'm not convinced s/he is looking for this type of article on management. This is particularly true in the cases of sports managers User:JohnBlackburne refers to below. — AjaxSmack 21:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Manager has two broad meanings in English, the business sense and the sport sense. So much that e.g. you can ask “where’s the manager?“ in a shop and people know exactly what you mean (even if there is none) or you might talk about the “England manager”, referring to the manager of England, in a sport ~~concept~~ context and everyone understands you mean Roy Hodgson (in fact England Manager redirects to the relevant page). Neither is obviously primary and so together with the other entries a DAB page here makes sense.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Management looks like it is a broad-concept article that covers both meanings. Is that not the case? Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing on sport management, but is focussed on management within companies and similar organisations. In theory some of it could be applied to sports but very little and it leaves a lot out. A sports manager is an entirely different thing: it can be more like a corporate manager, or more like a trainer/coach, or somewhere in between. Even within sports such as football some “managers” have broad responsibility for all aspects of the football club (especially in smaller clubs), some deal only with players, or even only with coaching and match-day player selection.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. All other meanings, even those in sport, derive from management, which covers all of them in general terms. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence for this? Or any evidence that readers searching "manager" are looking for an article on management? And where are sports managers covered in the management article? — AjaxSmack 03:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - First line. "Management in businesses and organizations is the function that coordinates the efforts of people to accomplish goals and objectives by using available resources efficiently and effectively." Is this not what all management is about, including sports management? Management as defined in that article is clearly the basis for all management. But let's be realistic here in any case. How many managers are there in the world? Millions. What percentage of them are sports managers? Tiny. This isn't Sportsopedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very interesting. There are billions of nice people in the world but nice still directs to an article on a single city for very good reasons. I don't deny that millions of business managers exist but your statements it still don't address the issue of whether readers of an encyclopedia searching "manager" are looking for an article on management. The current situation allows readers easily choose between business manager, various sports managers as well as the management article. A move would even require an extra step from users seeking the business manager article. — AjaxSmack 15:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was unconvinced about this going in because as a sports fan, soccer and baseball managers were prominent in my thoughts. However, when looking at the page view stats it's clear that it terms of the usage criterion at primary topic, Management dominates the other titles [1] [2]. In addition, the argument that all of the terms at the dab derive from management is a compelling case for the long-term importance criterion. Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But how do you interpret that to mean people searching "manager" are looking for an article on management? And what evidence do you have that "manager" derives from "management"? I would assume the opposite could be true since "management" is a pretty recent term. — AjaxSmack 03:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not according to the OED, which records the first known usage of both terms in 1598 (in a dictionary, so presumably both were already actually in common use). Both are derived from "manage", first recorded in English in 1560 and deriving from the Italian "maneggiare". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then if the terms are equally old and equally derivative, shouldn't we have a dab page that directs readers to both the business manager article as well as management? — AjaxSmack

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.