Talk:Back-up partner

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

Requested move 18 March 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: No consensus. The proposed move clearly has no support, but most contributors do seem to feel that some change is necessary. Back-up partner (which appears in the sources), and back-up lover are contenders. I don't think there's enough consensus to call it for either of those right now, but 1402regroup9 I suggest you should open a new request, pick one of those possible new titles, and see what support you get for it. Thanks. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spare tire lover → Backup in relationship – we found this term is a more native way in English to define the concept that we want to illustrate. This term is also included in many of the references that we added in the page.Many surveys and discussion around this can also be found. So we think the new name is more suitable for this page. http://justlav.com/2013/10/28/there-are-no-back-up-plans-in-love/ 1402regroup9 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; the given sources use "fall-back partner", "back-up partner", "back-up person", "back burner", "back-up husband" and "back-up boyfriend". None, including the reference linked above, use the ungrammatical term "backup in relationship". Would suggest "back-up partner" as the clearest from these. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; seems to be clearer than any of the alternatives, back-up lover would be clear what kind of partner is meant. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spare tire lover → back-up lover – we agree to change the title to back-up lover— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1402regroup9 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 March 2015‎

Does any source actually use the term "back-up lover"? The concept seems to be equally about long-term relationships. --McGeddon (;talk) 12:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do find sources about back-up lover [1],4 reasons women have backup lovers. [2],NEARLY HALF OF ALL WOMEN HAVE A BACK UP LOVER, STUDY REVEALS. And since we will keep on modifying this page, we will consider including those sources to enrich the content. In addition, we think it is strict enough to explain the concept and avoid misunderstanding. we prefer to change the title to this term.1402regroup9 (talk)

User:1402regroup9 please don't use footnotes on Talk page. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the requested name does not appear to be grammatically correct -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to back-up lover, Standby lover, or Back-up partner: The current name is certainly not good. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article is about a WP:NEOLOGISM and should probably be deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think the article is about a concept or phenomenon of having someone in mind as a contingent "fall-back" partner. The only neologism issue is a question of the term that is being used to describe the phenomenon. The notion of having a contingent partner in mind does not involve a neologism. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 26 March 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: Moved (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spare tire lover → Back-up partner – The current title is obviously bad – it seems like a corny neologism and lacks any clarifying hyphenation. The proposed title has some support in sources, as previously noted. There are alternatives that could be considered – e.g., "back-up lover" or "standby lover", but "back-up partner" seems adequate. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Spare tire lover" seems to be a literal translation from the Chinese. --McGeddon (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Back-up lover or standby lover and not "partner", since partner does not mean lover. And you can have a backup business partner -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second disambiguation on the partner page is sexual partner. And a back-up lover could be "somebody who really loves back-ups" - it's not always possible to have a completely unambiguous article title. --McGeddon (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me the word "lover" has a connotation that is slightly graphic and less general than the concept of a "significant other", "life partner", "domestic partner", etc. In the case of this particular topic, it may be important to consider the possibility of a "sexless marriage" or "marriage of convenience" or similar relationships. The motivation for domestic partnership or marriage is not always passion. This could affect both the reason for wanting to have an alternative in mind for a current partner as well as the reason for the selection of the alternative back-up partner. Consider, for example, levirate marriage. In such a case, the brother of the current partner could be a back-up partner – for reasons that have little to do with sexuality or love. Also consider hypergamy, Boston marriage, romantic friendship, conjugal love, mixed-orientation marriage, etc. One or both of the partners here might not be a "lover". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did a quick google [3] and the current title in English seems to be unknown outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. We should use a descriptive English phrase rather than a literal translation of the Chinese term. The proposed title Back-up partner seems the best yet suggested. Andrewa (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.