Talk:Backstreets

2010

Almost the entire article appears to be an intellectual blowing of a load. It should be rewritten in more of an encyclopedic format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.65.254 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, this article is the antithesis of "encyclopedic": is this a fanboy website or what? SirMustapha (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert move

(cur | prev) 17:00, 4 November 2012‎ Tassedethe (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,007 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Tassedethe moved page Backstreets (song) to Backstreets: mv over redirect) (undo | thank)

Sorry, but this isn't the only topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the plural is sufficient disambiguation in this case. Jenks24 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Backstreets → Backstreets (song) – This was moved over the redirect to Backstreet disambiguation page in 2012, but backstreets is the plural of backstreet. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - plural form is sufficient for disambiguation. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The plural is sufficient here. A google search for the title indicates an overwhelming interest in this topic and we don't seem to have any page for which "backstreets" is a more likely target, unless we really want to argue that someone searching "backstreets" is more likely to be looking for info on simply "street".--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the aboves. The plural is a perfectly fine disambiguator. Calidum 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons unlike the above. If Backstreet were an article about its use as a noun, or if Backstreet was a redirect to a primary topic which was a noun, I could support this move, as well as redirecting Backstreets to Backstreet (or Backstreet's article target) per above. But since Backstreet is a redirect to disambiguation page and since Backstreets (disambiguation) does not exist as a standalone disambiguation page, the "s" is a sufficient disambiguator for this page's title. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The commonest meaning of backstreets is obviously the plural of backstreet. The song doesn't come close to being primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unnecessary, for the reasons described above. The "s" disambiguates adequately so no need to use a parenthetical disambiguator. Even if this term can also be the plural of "backstreet" used as a "street" we do not have a "backstreet" article. And even if "backstreet" itself was notable enough to have an article it would make more sense to have a hatnote here noting that is the plural of the "backstreet" article, since those looking up the plural of "backstreet" would need no more clicks to get to their target than if this went to the dab page, but those looking for the song would get here directly. Rlendog (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.