unmarried partner someone with whom the person is in a relationship without being married. Use "spouse" (P26) for married couples
Description
partner of the subject (i.e. someone with whom the subject was closely related but not married, as befits today's modern "partnership" as opposed to marriage trend).
Contemporaries: if [item A] has this property (unmarried partner(P451)) linked to [item B], then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
Property “sex or gender(P21)” declared by target items of “unmarried partner(P451)”: If [item A] has this property with value [item B], [item B] is required to have property “sex or gender(P21)”. (Help)
I'm a bit confused by the scope of this property. Is it meant for cohabitants in
the sense of "common-law spouse" (that is, a status the law automatically grants to two people who have lived together under marriage-like relationship for a certain amount of time without ever having been married, registered as cohabitants or undergone any kind of matrimony-like ceremony - for example the relationship betweenQ3020859 andQ34969),
the sense of "registered partner" (as in a marriage-like status available to same-sex couples in some jurisdictions where the legislature is reluctant to recognize same-sex marriages - for example the relationship betweenQ1174489 andQ2808), or
a more generic sense of "life partner" (meaning that there isn't necessarily any kind of judicial recognition of the relationship whatsoever)
Because for some languages it can be quite tricky to translate the title of this property without choosing one of the above interpretations.Gabbe (talk)18:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the entry for OprahQ55800, the "partner" property is apparently used for people that she dated, or in the case of Roger Ebert, someone she went out with a few times. Is that over-inclusion? Is there a better term?Kenirwin (talk)14:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the way Wikidata right now splits up partners is kinda terrible, there aren't just two types of relationships, "married" and "unmarried". There are tons of legal and social types of romantic and sexual relationships. As far as I'm concerned we should only have a single "partner" item with many qualifiers added.*Treker (talk)15:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to revertthis edit (removal of a Belarusian alias) because the greek description is too long, and you can't edit anything if there is such a length violation. However, the greek description exists for quite a while now (inserted byUser:Vchorozopoulos in April) and the property has been edited a lot since, so maybe others don't have that problem (?). I can't change the Greek description, as I don't understand it. (I also don't understand Belarusian, butUser:Wizardist, who inserted that alias once, does, and Google Translate tells me that it's a correct alias, while the IP is from the United States and therefore probably more likely to randomly remove the alias than actually correcting things. If you think I'm wrong, just tell me.) --YMS (talk)16:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I was able to revert using the revert button, and therefore without any comment, which I would have added otherwise. Then again, I commented here excessively. --YMS (talk)16:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The description says this item applies when a "person is in a relationship without being married". It's a good idea to require a reference to confirm that the relationship exists, but how do we know for sure that two people aren't married? The information isn't necessarily public. Perhaps the description should just say "not known to be married"?Ghouston (talk)04:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghouston: I agree. I really think these partner properties should be more defining. For example, there is no way to express that someone is a common-law spouse, concubine or fiance right now. And domestic partnerships or similar things are also lacking.*Treker (talk)18:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can someone express that someone have a continued "affair" with the item?
Painter Kees van Dongen had open relationship with Jasmy. could I qualify the type of relation is 'open relationship' somehow?Hannolans (talk)10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what wikiproject do you use. Though I can assume why it can be: this property is frequently vandalised and rarely has encyclopedic value.Infovarius (talk)20:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I use it for the infobox on french wikipedia. More especially, it is for the page ofQ325696, who was married for a few days (so it's not so important in is life), but mostly was "life partner" withQ451716 andQ153224 (homosexuality was taboo at the time). I think that this information would deserve more light.Entropy fighter (talk)21:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask on the talk page of the Infobox on the French Wikipedia. There's no special treatment here regrading the reuse of the data of this property.Mbch331 (talk)05:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
