The problem you are facing is the fact that the term "fairy pieces"is very old, and common (basically grandfathered in). I don't like the term myself, however when I hear the term I know immediately what type of pieces "can be seen", and in most cases I will avoid playing that variant (not that they aren't fun/interesting but simply because I like playing Teams (and fairy pieces aren't too commonly played teams). This is generally the only time I play fairy pieces (unless with other chess.com friends that would like me to play with them).
So back to the point, the term fairy piece is just too old to be removed. From a site development point of view (pov) It would be a waste of valuable time to go through the code base and change all instances (front-end) mentions of the term "fairy piece" and change it to something else. Not only that you are never going to please everyone with the name given (even some may be mad it's not called "fairy pieces".
The term fairy chess is demeaning.
I don't understand why it's a problem. They're different pieces, call them different names. Rook, Knight, Bishop, Queen, King, Pawn. Those are all pretty strange names. Why get worked up about it.
Chess Variant https://www.chessvariants.com/what.html and Fairy Chess Pieces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece are established terms. There is no reason to change them. People know them, they are short, sound good (compare to "unorthodox" 
), can be easily translated to any language.
"Fairy" opens unlimited possibilities, brings out creativity. While "let's limit it to duke, count, prince, chancellor" sets limits, boundaries. Why set them? Why not let King Kong fight Godzilla, or Alien fight Predator or Thor?
There are dragons in Japanese chess. Should they be renamed to "promoted rook"?!
"Compound piece" sounds good, it gives a hint about some pieces. It can be used to describe those pieces. Still, there are many pieces which are not compound. Also, it is compatible with "fairy" word: "compound fairy piece".
Openings are "variations", not "variants". They do sound similar, but they are different and it would be pointless to try to change it. If you create a variant/piece, you can name it whatever you would like.
The generation raised believing the internet is a source of valid information when anyone can type whatever they want with impunity will become nothing more than an echo chamber reciting their own mistaken viewpoint to one another believing they are never wrong.
Information is not valid just because it is typed online.
Information that is vetted through a peer-review process of published subject matter experts is valid. Failure to acknowledge these simple facts is to wallow in your own ignorance.
Wikipedia is not information.
I fully agree
While Wikipedia is not completely reliable information, it is moderated a lot, and verified pages can be very reliable. Also, no source of information is truly completely reliable. I often use Wikipedia, and in my experience has never once gone against verified sources such as Encyclopedia Brittanica. I also fully agree with everything @BabYagun said. The word "fairy" is very flexible and gives a hint to a new chess player that these are not normal chess pieces. I don't think this is a topic worth getting worked up about.
No, but that is an inaccurate analogy. Learning about chess variants and going to the doctor are hardly similar.
Okay... I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying in general, but I don't see what's wrong with using Wikipedia as a source of chess information. Also, I think the discussion has gotten a bit off-track. Wasn't it originally about changing the name of fairy pieces?
Well, that's where we differ. I don't really think that the word "fairy" seems childish. If they changed it suddenly, many people would be confused, and the overall effect would barely change anything for the better.
As you can guess (after reading my previous message in this thread) I am happy that fairy chess pieces or variants can be created, published, discussed and enjoyed without the approval of peer reviewed journals, FIDE or similar organisations and structures. The open-mindness (if this word even exists in English) and flexibility (if this word can be applied to a sport federation or some "professor committee" at all) of such institutions would allow to create a few variants and pieces per millennium only.
Yes, you want a medicine to be approved by FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). But why compare Medicinae Doctors to chess players? Especially to amateur chess players, playing for fun?!
Imagine news:
{some acronym like FIDE or FDA here} doesn't approve Angry Birds 3 and Plants vs. Zombies 3, because plant names have typos (Gloom-shroom?! Threepeater?!), zombies are imbalanced and green pigs don't exist (according to peer reviewed journals and zoological reference books).
No, please. I don't want this in chess variants.
As you can guess (after reading my previous message in this thread) I am happy that fairy chess pieces or variants can be created, published, discussed and enjoyed without the approval of peer reviewed journals, FIDE or similar organisations and structures. The open-mindness (if this word even exists in English) and flexibility (if this word can be applied to a sport federation or some "professor committee" at all) of such institutions would allow to create a few variants and pieces per millennium only.
Yes, you want a medicine to be approved by FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). But why compare Medicinae Doctors to chess players? Especially to amateur chess players, playing for fun?!
Imagine news:
{some acronym like FIDE or FDA here} doesn't approve Angry Birds 3 and Plants vs. Zombies 3, because plant names have typos (Gloom-shroom?! Threepeater?!), zombies are imbalanced and green pigs don't exist (according to peer reviewed journals and zoological reference books).
No, please. I don't want this in chess variants.
Once more, you have voiced my thoughts perfectly. Keep up the good logic!
I don't have a problem with people calling them what they want, but there is no reason to have a major upheaval of the general majority calling them fairy pieces. "fairy" is NOT the equivalent of "sissy" or "fake".
I really don't like it because it's inaccurate and moreover, it infantilizes the chess variants family. It's like saying that if you don't play orthodox you believe in fairies, and it's not that there couldn't be some pieces that are fairy themed. Without going too deep, the sage from courier chess represents a wizard, even I am not against mystical thematic, it's just that it's not just all and by this means it's not representative of all the variants family.
The most popular chess sets in the history of occidental culture, are medieval warfare representations, and in my opinion that must stay a canon, what's metaphysical in an archbishop or a chancellor? they are real medieval figures! Should I not say that some variants nomenclature gets me sick, terms like alice chess, grasshopper, amazon, nuclear, lion, wolf, should be avoided and employed only once duke, count, prince, page and all other names are exausted, that's my opinion.
Going back to the topic, the term variant is accurate but vague and misleading because it misleads with chess openings that are also called variants.
I sugest that instead we use the terms extension,extended and non-standard, as is used in other type of games, because they are accurate and respectfull, we play extended chess games with extended chess sets, in extended boards with extension pieces, not fairies.
However it's all chess and mad queen is just another variant of chess, I'm getting back on my words but I can't stay away from the fact that mad queen is considered standard, so in that pov the terms variants, unorthodox, extension and non-standard are ok when talking relative to fide standard, but by no means fairy, please stop using fairy as a term in this site.