Wikidata:Property proposal/number of spouses
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
number of spouses[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | number of spouses of the person, if the person had more than one at the same time. Use for polygamous persons only. |
|---|---|
| Data type | Quantity |
| Domain | polygamous people |
| Allowed values | >1 |
| Allowed units | none |
| Example | Joseph Smith (Q47102) → 49, 27 |
| See also | spouse (P26), number of children (P1971) |
- Motivation
Jacob is an notable prophet and catholic saint with 4 wives & Joseph smith's polygamy is also famous & Muhammad's too. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by BukhariSaeed (talk • contribs).
- Discussion
Oppose There are no cases where the full list shouldn't be added. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment I can see this might be helpful similar to number of children (P1971) - however I am concerned that this will too often be disputable - what counts as a spouse? I think it's preferable that the nature of each relationship be described (for example with marriage date and place, if there was one). That is, if any spouses of a person with a wikidata item is considered notable enough for a wikidata item then all should be similarly needed to describe their relationships, and we don't need this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I find number of children (P1971) to have it's usages. It frequently happens that a source tells you the number of children but not their name. On the other hand the number of cases where you have a number of spouses but there's no way to find out more about the spouses is very limited and it's okay to create specific items in those cases even if they are nearly empty and don't even contain a name. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @BukhariSaeed:The example is different from the datatype!Please correct.Thanks David (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that even when you don't want to create items for additional wifes because you don't know anything about them "unknown" value can still be used. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I think it can be hard to determine polygamous relationships from spouse (P26). Maybe this property could be explicitly limited to the total(s). The situation is different from child (P40) / number of children (P1971) where it's always an incremental number. --- Jura 14:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- @BukhariSaeed:: I updated the proposal accordingly.
--- Jura 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- @BukhariSaeed:: I updated the proposal accordingly.
Support per above
--- Jura 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose And now the example has two values? This seems hard to define in the first place (spouse requires a marriage? Civil, or what? - and the linked wikipedia article suggests many of the claims in the particular case are disputed) and the current definition and restriction make it worse - what are "polygamous people" exactly? That's not a recognized domain in Wikidata. If you want to start a Wikiproject on polygamy and the various groups that have allowed multiple simultaneous spouses or sort-of spousal relationships, go ahead, but there's a lot of murky water there. What can be well defined are events for particular spouses (marriage, divorce, death) - as suggested above, we should add those consistently where possible - and of course child-related events (who are the two biological parents) which may not be associated with a spousal relationship in general. But I don't think this proposal makes any sense as it currently stands. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)- Oppose per Arthur. Mahir256 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Manu1400 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose just has part(s) of the class (P2670) member (Q9200127) with qualifiers quantity (P1114) some value and criterion used (P1013) family tree (Q189977). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think has part(s) of the class (P2670) is a good solution. Spouses aren't parts. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Manu1400, Liuxinyu970226, Manu1400, Mahir256, Jura1:@BukhariSaeed, ArthurPSmith, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Not done, given that there are plenty of oppose votes. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
