Talk:Chiefs (Super rugby franchise)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move as no consensus to move will ever be reached (WP:SNOW) --Bob 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Chiefs (Super rugby franchise) → Chiefs — "Chiefs" currently redirects to "Chief". Why can't we move this page to a similar position to the Crusaders article? --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support It is important for all the New Zealand teams to be at their proper names. Chiefs currently redirects and I believe most people searching this article will type "Chiefs"--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are four other sports teams named the "Chiefs" with articles on Wikipedia. The Kansas City Chiefs are especially prominent in the US and are what any US reader would be looking for. -Anþony (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Please remember that this is a world wide encyclopedia. Do you have a citation to prove the claim that "I believe most people searching this article will type"? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above -- Beardo 08:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the name of the Chiefs is simply Chiefs so I would assume most people searching for the team will type in Chiefs.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as above; I immediately thought of the Kansas City Chiefs. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above; The KC Chiefs are definitely the more popular in the US and possibly Canada. How popular is an unsuccessful rugby union team? It is also important to note that of the 14 teams in Super 14, only 4 (Crusaders, Central Cheetahs, Stormers, and Southern Spears) are not disambiguated in some manner. --Bobblehead 19:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many teams known as the Chiefs. If anything, Crusaders should become a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Chiefs should be a disambig page, but the KC Chiefs are far too notable. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - for reasons mentioned above. Just add this team to the disambig page with the others. ENDelt260 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose but not because of the overated KC Chiefs, but because other uses for that word exist outside of rugby. --Bob 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Apparently this is part of a larger effort to take over several generic team names. I hope you will realize that these teams are not the only ones that go by such names. In fact, they're quite common. Several of the other teams are definitely more prominent than these rugby teams in other parts of the world. The current situation using disambiguation pages is entirely appropriate. Please do not put the other articles up for a move. -Anþony (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• If I have the time, I would like to respond to this comment and cite numerous reliable examples in common American English where the Kansas City Chiefs are commonly referred to as just "Chiefs". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• My point is that why can't this article be like the Crusaders article? The Kansas City Chiefs has a location in the name, thus people will search for that. The Chiefs has no location in the name and using the current format is unsightly and the previous format of the Waikato Chiefs is incorrect. I think the issue is that people saying oppose don't realise this.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the Crusaders article is the one that needs to be moved. There are three other "Crusaders" sports teams, two bands, a religious youth group, and a group of comic book characters. I'm not going to bother putting it up for a move myself because I have no idea how prominent those other uses of the term are in relation to the rugby team.

However, the Kansas City Chiefs are very prominent in the US. They are routinely referenced by fans and the media as simply the "Chiefs" when it would be redundant or overfly formal to say "Kansas City" every time. As even you must be aware, this is extremely common for sports teams whose official names include their home town, university, or whatever. It is beyond doubt that people will search for the Kansas City Chiefs simply by entering "Chiefs" because that is easier and they may not be aware of the other uses of the term, and so would expect it to redirect to Kansas City Chiefs.

I invite you to review WP:D#Primary topic, which states in part:

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

All of those voting, excluding yourself as the nominator, have disputed that the rugby team is the primary meaning of "Chiefs". There is clearly no consensus to support the primary topic claim or this move. -Anþony (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just so you know, I didn't post those unsigned comments above. The Rugby Union Chiefs are well known in New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom (Queendom), Ireland, France, Italy, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga , Japan and Argentina. That versus the United States Chiefs.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, the term "Cheifs", when put into google, gives the rugby Cheifs first.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that you are using the localized version of Google for New Zealand, which does indeed return the rugby Chiefs as #1.[1] However, even there, the Kansas City Chiefs come up #2, implying that the US team has a good deal of notoriety world-wide. Of course, the Kansas City Chiefs come up #1 on Google.com[2] and even Google.co.uk[3]. All three searches bring up quite a few "Chiefs" unrelated to the New Zealand rugby team. -Anþony (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually using the Australia version of Google. You said that the KC Chiefs came up second on those, stating a good level of "notoriety world-wide". However, the RU Chiefs came up second on the pages where the KC Chiefs were first, suggesting a similar level of "notoriety world-wide", going by your standards. Seeing as this is being heavely opposed, how about a disambiguous page for the term "Chiefs", rather than that specific term redirecting to Chief.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For disambig pages, the plural form of the word should be included with the singular form. Chiefs should be included with Chief. —Mike 06:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed that the rugby Chiefs aren't prominent, only that others uses are prominent as well. When there are multiple prominent articles with the same name, a disambiguation page is the natural solution, which we have now. I'm not aware of a specific rule against having a dab page for Chiefs separate from Chief, but it would probably be confusing. The current situation is fine. -Anþony (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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