Talk:The Chicks

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: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 07:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Chicks → The Chicks – Let's do this the appropriate way. Considering the previous move discussion was closed as "moot", I'm starting a new discussion since the page has now been moved back to its previous long-standing title. There is no reason why the title of this article should still be under "Dixie Chicks" or "The Dixie Chicks". They have officially changed their name and we should follow suit. As pointed out in the previous discussion, WP:NAMECHANGES states: "If reliable sources are using the new name, Wikipedia should use the new name". "(The) Dixie Chicks" will still redirect here if the article is moved to "The Chicks", so no reader would be lost or looking for the former. There is honestly no sensible reason why this should still be at the old title. AshMusique (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There can only be one open move request at a time on a talk page. Since the earlier request proposed this title, Dixie Chicks, it has been closed and this request will remain open to determine the highest and best title for this article. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the official name has changed, WP:RS are reporting the change and then referring to them as "The Chicks" from then on (e.g. ABC, Fox News). There are many examples of new names of people or entities being announced and then quickly becoming the common name (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner, COVID-19 pandemic, lots of women who marry and change their names); and I can not think of any comparable name changes which did not pass into popular use (there is Cat Stevens, but that is not really comparable because it was 30-odd years before he released any music under his new name). So I can see no good reason to think the new name will not become the common name, so WP should follow all the WP:RS and use the new name. Adpete (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per nom, WP:RS, Lady A and well, common sense. Glen 07:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support' per nom. jamacfarlane (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. Consensus was quite clearly being established in favour of the new title, and the revert of the move and RM closure was counter to that. Nzd (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I see that tags haven't been added and this hasn't been relisted at WP:RM, suggesting that the procedure wasn't followed correctly. Could the requester or an admin fix this? (@AshMusique:) Nzd (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nzd: per WP:RMUM and WP:TITLES, consensus must shown before a move. I've added the proper RM notice to the top of this so it will appear listed at WP:RM. -- Netoholic @ 12:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's the name of the band. Parabolist (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. So obvious and uncontroversial, does not require an RM. WWGB (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support For something else the policy might be to wait, but in this case it's common sense that they'll now be referred to by their new name, which is already happening by RS. Not sure why the previous discussion was closed as "moot" when the consensus was clearly in favor of The Chicks. Johndavies837 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• strong support The Chicks is now officially their name and as such it should be moved there - when companies change names, we move them, why is this any different? Praxidicae (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because, eh, what? That's their name. Glen, I move-protected for ten days in the vain hope that we'd have a regular discussion which wouldn't be closed prematurely--any time that discussion was closed properly, the officiating admin could have undone that protection and moved it. That was my hope anyway, haha. Instead, it was moved for no good reason, and a discussion that could have undone that was closed for no good reason. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and I think this snowballs at this point.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support "The Chicks" is their official name, and the article should reflect that. I don't see any policy that could justify keeping the article at Dixie Chicks. I also see that there was consensus for keeping the page at "The Chicks (band)", so I do not agree with the snap decision that was made to have moved the page back. Vmanjr (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm quite distressed to see the fanatic rush to change this title. Yes, they announced a name change, but per WP:TITLES policy (specifically WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:NAMECHANGES), we do not immediately use the "official name" and instead wait to see how sources develop after a name change and weight them accordingly. This was only just announced (as of this timestamp, less than a full day), and every source which uses "The Chicks" also uses "Dixie Chicks" (because, of course) which is evidence a name change is not immediate per "reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well". There are -no- sources which use unqualified "The Chicks", and that may not come for months. I feel like Wikipedia, in this rush, is playing into the politics of this issue and the marketing/public relations of this band by rushing to judgement, and throwing out our standards in the process. This has already spurred a move war on this page, leading to its move protection, and has spread to its subpages. I'll point out that the first suggestions were to move to The Chicks (band) and now the proposed The Chicks, so even in the haste of it all we're not giving this due, careful consideration. I oppose any type of early closure on this because doing so would simply reward this rushed behavior and set poor precedent. -- Netoholic @ 13:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
  • Netoholic, interestingly the only person who has brought "politics" into this is you. Glen 03:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. This is a "fanatic rush". I don't know what particular thing you are defending here, Netoholic--policy? the honor of the Chicks? Drmies (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due care and consideration in accordance to our procedures and guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 13:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you offer an example of an official name change which did not become the popular name; in other words, is there any precedent to suggest we are being premature? And no, we are not playing politics, lots of other articles get renamed quickly after an official name change. Adpete (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Snoop Dogg announced a name change to "Snoop Lion" and then to "Snoopzilla." Reliable sources did not honor that name change and Wikipedia did not change the title of the page. 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is different because Snoop was rather ambivalent about what name he should be called; "I can never get rid of who I am... I'm Snoop Doggy Dogg, then I'm Snoop Dogg, then I'm Snoop Lion. But it's all the same."Q&A: Snoop Dogg on criticism, religion, reggae CD - SFGate Adpete (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • If I'm reading the move log correctly, Prince (musician) has never been moved, as most reliable sources never took to using the symbol or the name "The Artist." 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's not a good example, either. Prince reverted back to using his name by the year 2000, while the article wasn't created until 2002. While I don't have definitive proof handy, I recall reputable news sources in the 1990s referring to him as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince. Vmanjr (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • When Sean Combs announced in 2017 and again in 2018 that he would be henceforth known professionally as "Brother Love," Wikipedia did not move the page. Tupac Shakur declared he would be professionally known as "Makaveli" before his death; Wikipedia does not use that as the name of the page. 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd encourge you to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, specially WP:OTHERSTUFF. Glen 06:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There is really only one way to respond to the question "Can you offer an example of an official name change which did not become the popular name; in other words, is there any precedent...?" Also, several years ago, when Kanye West announced he was changing his name to "Ye," Wikipedia did not move the page. 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We are not discussing a bunch of boofy rappers who change names more often than underwear. This is about a mainstream band that updated its name for ethical reasons, not some short-lived ego trip. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A My question was about real world precedent (i.e., how the real world WP:RS refer to a renamed person/group), not WP precedent. Adpete (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Netoholic, I am sorry if this "fanatic rush" distresses you--still, I can't help but wonder where the fanaticism is. Has anything been burned down? Drmies (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It is CRYSTAL to presume that the name won’t be picked up in use. “Popularity” has nothing to do with how common it is used. When continuing to use a name for something when you’ve already been asked not to use said name is utterly disrespectful and should not require discussion. How is it different for a trans person to go by a new name than a group of people changing their name? The fact that the default thinking is "Oh, they’ll change back, so why move?", when this has not been a recurrent outcome is utterly ludicrous. The only reason reliable sources would stop using the new name was in the unlikely event that the name would change back, but that’s not a good bet to take in cases like these.--BaseFree (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)— BaseFree (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Simmerdon3448 (talk · contribs). [reply]
• Oppose: It's actually CRYSTAL to assume that common usage will favour the new name over the name the band has gone by for thirty years. Zacwill (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been debunked. Try again.--BaseFree (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Rather confused as to why a discussion needed to be done - Anyway support as per NAMECHANGES. –Davey2010^Talk 13:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose until common usage has been firmly established. Per WP:NAMECHANGE: "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." To make this move now, just one day after, would be WP:CRYSTAL. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – per WP:COMMONNAME, which has not yet changed. – bradv🍁 13:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gonna need citation on this claim--BaseFree (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A citation for the fact that "The Chicks" isn't the name used in the prevalence of reliable sources about this subject? – bradv🍁 14:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A citation that their name isn’t their name--BaseFree (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this works. This is an encyclopedia - our content reflects what is written in reliable sources. At the moment, the sources continue to use the name that they've used for the past 30 years. Once that changes, we will follow suit. (Also, please stop screwing around with the previous discussion - we don't need two requested moves open at once.) – bradv🍁 15:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bradv, BaseFree was just another sock, but what happened was your initial comment was taken wrong: BaseFree (who was a sock of a none-too-bright editor) though your "which hasn't changed" referred to the name of the group, but you were pointing at the name of the guideline. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'm not surprised that they were a sock. I am a little surprised that this discussion is going the way it is, since we don't usually move things until the COMMONNAME used in reliable source changes. Consider the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which announced a name change in 2018, yet we still haven't moved it after at least 3 RM discussions. – bradv🍁 15:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, that is odd, for sure. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: There is precedent for that with other bands. Coltsfan (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with comment: If it's the official name now, sure, change the article. But one thing I don't think should be done (maybe it'll require an extra discussion?) is the replacement of "Dixie Chicks" with "the Chicks" throughout the whole article space itself. Since the band was known as the Dixie Chicks during the context of its founding, history, etc., I don't think we should change references to the band's past to the new name. Example: "The Chicks were founded by Laura Lynch on upright bass, guitarist Robin Lynn Macy, and the multi-instrumentalist sisters Martie and Emily Erwin in 1989." This is not how an article should be written - events from before the name change should reflect the name at the time, not the name used now. NomadicNom (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree with the sentiment, I think you picked a bad example sentence. When a restaurant is founded, it will always acknowledge the original name, whether the new name was just a shortening or a complete rebrand. “The Chicks was founded in X year as original name” is completely valid--BaseFree (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You're correct, my mistake. I should have picked a better example. NomadicNom (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The same goes for certain sub-articles like Dixie Chicks controversy which occurred long before this name change and is still the COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 16:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Very much agreed, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm referring to. NomadicNom (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This is the name that the group is now identifying themselves as. There are plenty of sources out there verifying this. I think it would make sense to keep the original name throughout places in the article where it appropriate. However, when discussing their "musical style", overview, and "legacy", it would be best to use the name "The Chicks". ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support name change with "(band)". I think adding the disambiguation is a good idea since this is a new name and not the first singing group to use the name "The Chicks". I also agree that we shouldn't tear up the article changing the old to new name. Springee (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. oknazevad (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, per above, per WP:NAMECHANGES. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support WP:SNOW. Please also ensure that the speedy renames at WP:CFD get moved back to the standard, unopposed section after this is moved back. And also change instances of "The Chicks (band)" to "The Chicks". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Tduk (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Get it done. After the initial move to "The Chicks", it was inappropriate for it to be moved back to be "The Dixie Chicks" again while such a move was still under discussion. Further corroboration comes from articles that are now appearing that use the new name in the headline and text, with "Dixie" appearing nowhere except in externally embedded videos.^[1] Let's get it done sooner rather than later, and minimize the waste of energy imposed by the wasteful and inappropriate reverse move. --Presearch (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources that use The Chicks as the WP:COMMONNAME, so already being used in many publications.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per points above. livelikemusic (TALK!) 13:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above points. The name change is official. I do agree that the article should stay with "Dixie Chicks" in the running prose up until the name change , but one can make efforts to minimize its use to replace that with "the band" or "the group" as much as possible. --Masem (t) 16:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above points. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Just make sure that the group's discography and band member pages include their former name as well, i.e. such and such is a founding member of the country band The Chicks, formerly known as the Dixie Chicks. They went by that name for years and is important to the groups history. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The most reliable source we have on this matter are The Chicks themselves. There is no basis for questioning their intentions, particularly because the change was due to ethical convictions. S51438 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as new official name.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as new official name, with use in numerous WP:RS, as a news search for "The Chicks" will show. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I know some say wait until we can establish that the new name is the COMMONNAME, but in my experience, that line of argument doesn't hold up when it comes to widely-known, popular topics, like this band, or for example, 20th Century Fox -> 20th Century Studios. There is a 100% chance that all sources will refer to this band as "The Chicks" going forward. They may also point out that "The Chicks" is formerly known as "The Dixie Chicks", but nevertheless, "The Chicks" is going to be the name of the band going forward, absolutely 100% guaranteed. It's not like there's some chance the new name won't catch on or be used. So there's just no point in pretending we're not sure what the common name will be yet because it's too soon. Similarly, one need not wait to see if the sun will rise before making plans for the day. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as the new official name. Leave "Dixie Chicks" as redirect.Gonzalo84 (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BradV. A band changing its name does not necessarily merit a change in the article name. The Jackson 5 has since changed its name for instance, but consensus supported keeping the old name as per WP:COMMONNAME. Renaming it before the name becomes common use in media is premature. If they disbanded in a month, the name would obviously be reverted to Dixie Chicks. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 10:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per obvious consensus, and per precedent of Lady Antebellum's article moving to just Lady A. The name of just "The Chicks" is so widespread that I even saw SiriusXM credit "You Were Mine" to just "The Chicks" earlier today. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A redirect and hatnote will make sure everyone knows that they are on the correct page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]