Talk:Q841509

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Autodescription — lover (Q841509)

description: person's partner in an intimate relationship
Useful links:
Classification of the class lover (Q841509)  View with Reasonator View with SQID
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
lover⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1)
Generic queries for classes
See also



See also: Talk:Q11493441

Please note that zh:重要他人 is not equivalent to en:Significant other, which is a term for "Lover", known as "zh:愛人" in Chinese.

Q841509 (As those are all about lover/couple)

da:Kæreste
de:Lebensgemeinschaft
en:Significant other
ja:恋人
ko:중요타인
ms:Pasangan_rapat
nl:Partner (relatie)
nn:Kjærast
no:Kjæreste
sh:Partner (bliski odnosi)
zh-yue:打令
zh:愛人

Q11493441 (NOT about lover/couple)

pl:Znaczący inny
ru:Значимый другой
zh:重要他人

In addition, there is no entries related to ja:愛人 so far. ja:愛人 (external marriage affair, especially involved sexual relationship) is not related to zh:愛人 (lover), so please do not link ja:愛人 with zh:愛人. --TX55 (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what is zh:重要他人 about? Because ru:Значимый другой is for sure about couple/lover and literally means Significant other. Infovarius (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

zh:重要他人 is about one who is important to another in the latter's life. "重要他人" can be a family member, friends, seniors, or other role in addition to lover. I also use translator to check the pl:Znaczący inny, the meaning a close to the zh version. While ru:Значимый другой is mainly deal with the same contents, yet in the second paragraph, it contain the other meaning of Significant other, that is "lover". (Unless the Google translator went wrong) --TX55 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ru:Значимый другой contains information about any family member in 1st paragraph, and about genderless lover in second paragraph. Infovarius (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why it should go with Q11493441. --TX55 (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]