Property talk:P26
Documentation
the subject has the object as their spouse (husband, wife, partner, etc.). Use "unmarried partner" (P451) for non-married companions
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#Symmetric, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#Type Q95074, Q215627, Q5, Q4271324, Q13002315, Q21070568, Q340069, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#Item P21, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#Scope, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (spouse (P26)) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#Contemporary, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#Entity types
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#none of, SPARQL
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#none of, SPARQL
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#none of, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P26#citation needed
(Help)
Violations query:
SELECT ?item ?starttime ?born { ?item wdt:P569 ?born. ?item p:P26 ?statement. ?statement pq:P580 ?starttime. FILTER (?born > ?starttime) }List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P26#Born after date of wedding
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistics edit
Items without P26 statements (by number of sitelinks) edit
|
Number of items for people without P26 statements, by number of sitelinks (groups of ten, starting with 20 to 29).
This list is periodically updated by a bot. Manual changes to the list will be removed on the next update! WDQS | PetScan | TABernacle | Find images | Recent changes
|
Items without P26 statements (by number of identifiers) edit
|
Number of items for people without P26 statements, by number of identifiers (in ranges of ten, starting with 20 to 29).
This list is periodically updated by a bot. Manual changes to the list will be removed on the next update! WDQS | PetScan | TABernacle | Find images | Recent changes
|
Identifier on items and values edit
| Identifier (id) on item | Distinct values | Values with id | Values without id | %without | ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| genealogics.org person ID (P1819) ⇔ | 103678 | 77921 | 25757 | 24.8 | w wo |
| Geni.com profile ID (P2600) | 133629 | 81760 | 51869 | 38.8 | w wo |
| FamilySearch person ID (P2889) ⇔ | 10679 | 5816 | 4863 | 45.5 | w wo |
| WikiTree person ID (P2949) ⇔ | 167314 | 134533 | 32781 | 19.6 | w wo |
| The Peerage person ID (P4638) ⇔ | 425764 | 420796 | 4968 | 1.2 | w wo |
| Roglo person ID (P7929) | 27644 | 21277 | 6367 | 23 | w wo |
| Sejm-Wielki.pl profile ID (P8172) | 15815 | 12006 | 3809 | 24.1 | w wo |
| Kaiserhof ID (P1818) | 1522 | 629 | 893 | 58.7 | w wo |
| GND ID (P227) | 95969 | 43693 | 52276 | 54.5 | w wo |
| IMDb ID (P345) | 48137 | 31657 | 16480 | 34.2 | w wo |
| Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) | 34992 | 17204 | 17788 | 50.8 | w wo |
| Rodovid ID (P1185) | 41204 | 24422 | 16782 | 40.7 | w wo |
| VIAF ID (P214) | 147732 | 82055 | 65677 | 44.5 | w wo |
| Norwegian historical register of persons ID (P4574) | 1382 | 908 | 474 | 34.3 | w wo |
| Kindred Britain ID (P3051) | 28072 | 26461 | 1611 | 5.7 | w wo |
| GeneaStar person ID (P8094) | 5609 | 1007 | 4602 | 82 | w wo |
| CERL Thesaurus ID (P1871) | 25156 | 8315 | 16841 | 66.9 | w wo |
| NL CR AUT ID (P691) | 36417 | 11205 | 25212 | 69.2 | w wo |
| SAR ancestor ID (P8143) | 553 | 30 | 523 | 94.6 | w wo |
| MusicBrainz artist ID (P434) | 19807 | 6724 | 13083 | 66.1 | w wo |
| Political Graveyard politician ID (P8462) ⇔ | 1929 | 177 | 1752 | 90.8 | w wo |
As P26 is symmetric, consider the following about "%without". |
|---|
Consider three couples (6 persons total):
|
Discussion edit
Former spouses edit
How can we handle former spouses? -- Faux (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- See: Wikidata talk:Property proposal#Tracking historic data. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Former spouse of José Pablo Feinmann edit
- Hello, I am trying to include my mother as the first legal wife of my father prior to his second marriage, but the system or the editors, I don't know, they keep erasing her name and replacing it with "unknown value", why? I have provided the reference of a news article on my father's death where she is mentioned as being his first wife, and present in the funeral service, and also I would like to include their legal marriage and divorce papers.
- Thanks for any directions!
- Virginia.
- (The entry is https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Pablo_Feinmann) Vfeinmann (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is related to an ongoing discussion at Wikidata:Project chat#I have the wrong mother and a false brother according to Wikipedia in item Maria Julia Bertotto. I will provide a response there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Deutsche Übersetzung (German Translation) edit
Ich würde als Übersetzung Partner oder Gatte vorschlagen, da es ja rein theoretisch auch eine (eingetragene) Partnerschaft betreffen kann. --Faux (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Не могли быть мужем и женой. Или годы жизни неверны. (???)--Пробегающий (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Qualifier for type of spouse? edit
The property is also used on items for Chinese emperors. Should there be some qualifier to differentiate among the various "wifes"? Should some use Property:P451? -- Docu at 07:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Change to "Spouse or Partner" edit
Since spouse implies marriage in english should this property be Spouse or Partner rather than just spouse or should a new property of Partner (in a non-business sense) be created, since Partner by itself maybe confused with business partner it might make more sense to include it as part of this property. Jared Zimmerman (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- No need to label this as "spouse or partner", spouse is enough. The definition of spouse can be found here: Spouse. We can't practically include all words in property labels. Alternative words and labels should be in the description and alias. Danrok (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Danrok, I think the problem might be that spouse (P26) ≠ Partner and "cohabitant" ≠ Partner maybe we just need to change the property description on spouse (P26) to be clearer or more inclusive?
- Jared Zimmerman (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- This situation is always going to be problematic. Relationships and family aren't easily nailed-down as hard data. These things are subjective concepts which change over history, and differ around the world. Danrok (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Danrok is your suggestion "its difficult so we aren't going to try to improve it?" I'm not sure I follow.
- Jared Zimmerman (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there's certainly room for improvement. To me, a "cohabitant" is exactly that, someone who lives in the same home as you, your housemates. So, not necessarily a live-in lover. Danrok (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Danrok ok so do you think a new property is in order? If you're opposed to spouse (P26) being repurposed to include an unmarried significant others "partner" then I think we'll need a new property since unmarried partner (P451) isn't correct for this use case.
- Jared Zimmerman (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- My thoughts are that there should be a single property for spouse which includes all types of spouse (married or not). But, I have no idea on how this works across all cultures. This is probably one for Wikidata:Requests_for_comment. Danrok (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Done https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Scope_of_spouse_(P26)_and_cohabitant_(P451)
List of people with 3 spouses and more edit
Based on Wikidata items: List of people with 3 spouses and more. --- Jura 10:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Is w:Domestic partnership in the range of this property? edit
Are people being in domestic partnership in the range of this property? There are quite a lot of people in this case in Freebase. Tpt (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- @tpt: - I think that would be a subclass of ("would be in the range of") Property:P451, as the English article explicitly states that the partners aren't married. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
no value edit
Is "no value" a valid value? Does it mean that the person was never married?--Strainu (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes.
--- Jura 15:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Use in polygamous context edit
In pre-contemporary spouses would be classified as "first spouse", etc., with some form of internal hierarchy. How about using kinship to subject (P1039), and using the preferred rank for those who have a higher, uh, rank. Example here. --Zolo (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is also Wikidata:Property proposal/number of spouses addressing another aspect.
--- Jura 14:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Divorced couples edit
Statements for former spouses will generally have a qualifier "end time" (P582, with the actual date or "somevalue") and possibly "end cause" (P1534). Rank of the statement should be "normal", not "preferred" or "deprecated".
--- Jura 17:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Preferred rank for current spouses? edit
If there are a series of population numbers, generally preferred rank is used to indicate the most recent ones. This greatly faciliates retrieval from possibly dozens or hundreds of numbers from Wikidata.
If a start date for a spouse (P26) is set without an end date, sometimes preferred rank is used to do the same. The result is that in SPARQL, wdt:P26 wont retrieve spouses that have normal rank. Currently about 1% use this (about 600 of 61300 statements). This can lead to the surprising results discussed at Wikidata_talk:SPARQL_query_service/queries#Spouses_of_Madonna.
Most infoboxes at Wikidata display all spouses, not just the current one.
Given the above, I'd suggest not to use "preferred rank" for current spouses. @Jobu0101, Laboramus, Jheald:
--- Jura 07:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: We have a concept in Wikidata how to store data. I don't think it is a good idea to store data in a different way because of query issues. In such cases we have to adapt the query language and not the data itself. But in your case no adaption is necessary. Fortunately, SPARQL can already handle different ranks: German chancellors with spouses --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good to hear that our advice worked out for you and you got the query to work. I took the liberty to condense the formatting of the query as it somehow obscured the subject of the discussion with chancellors.
- What do you refer to with "a concept in Wikidata how to store data"? Is there a specific support you have in mind? I don't think there is anything related to spouses otherwise we wouldn't have had the misleading query on the samples page and I wouldn't have had to fix that many "deprecated rank" used for former spouses.
--- Jura 09:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Preferred rank AFAIK means current situation, actual data. So it only makes sense that current actual spouse (the person that the other person is married to) is preferred. If you ask somebody "who is your spouse" that's what they'd answer. That's why it is preferred. Of course, this question theoretically could also mean "who are all your spouses you have ever had" - and then you'd use all ranks. wdt:P26 has nothing to do with it, you can use p:P26/ps:P26 anytime you like. --Laboramus (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose changed my mind. ;)
--- Jura 07:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC) 
Comment working on kinship equivalent in SPARQL at Wikidata (P4316), I'm less convinced that preferred rank is that useful. It complicates a lot of definitions.
--- Jura 21:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)- I suppose we should use "preferred" if there is some current one, but all should be "normal" if all are past (even the recent one). --Infovarius (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Place of marriage edit
Some statements use, in addition to "start date" and "end date", the "location" as a qualifier. This isn't meant to indicate where the spouses lived, but to the place of the marriage ceremony. I don't think this is ideal as "location" is meant to apply to the entire statement, not just the start date. I'm not quite sure which alternate solution to suggest.
--- Jura 07:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is the right thing, as "marriage" as a state of being married and "marriage" as a ceremony are two different things. If it's really important to have marriage ceremony location, maybe have a property that explicitly says "marriage ceremony location" and add it to spouse as a qualifier? Or, if the marriage is so notable, have an item for it with date, location, etc.? --Laboramus (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Laboramus: Proposal at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#Place_of_marriage.
--- Jura 11:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Values for end cause (P1534) qualifier edit
I created death of subject's spouse (Q24037741).
--- Jura 21:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Preferred rank and dead people edit
- Properties used: date of death (P570)
, spouse (P26)
#current result: 13 items, e.g. [[Q2518]]
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
{
?item p:P26 ?statement .
?statement wikibase:rank wikibase:PreferredRank .
?item wdt:P570 []
}
LIMIT 100
Once a person dies, I think the "preferred rank" for the current spouse should be set back to Normal, even if there is no end date. @Laboramus:.
--- Jura 18:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think my bot (PreferentialBot) does not touch ranks for dead people, but it also doesn't reset them. If there's consensus on doing it this way, the bot can be made to reset ranks for dead people, but of course decision has to be made per-property. --Laboramus (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if there is only one spouse, wdt: would return it no matter the rank, and you will have to check end time (P582) in any case. Not sure there's a way around it. Laboramus (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Laboramus: I don't see how this one could be problematic, would you add it?
--- Jura 21:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Known to have been married, identity of spouse unknown edit
How do we deal with this situation?--Pharos (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- By adding a statement with unknown value? In the property documentation template there is a link "Items with unknown value claims" that lists some.
--- Jura 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Constraint on dates edit
Hoi, in my opinion this constraint is problematic particular in historic cases where we are happy to know a spouse but where dates are extremely unreliable. Having this constraint is too much. The notion that it is rare is based on what? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Constraint violation where "no value" added edit
This property is showing a constraint violation of "start date needed" where a 'no value' is used. Is there a means to correct this statement from being a violation? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @99of9: you added the mandatory constraint, and I don't see that discussion here. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
same name as edit
i changed value of "Spouse" for Vivienne Westwood (Q158067), based on enwiki and source [1], but the problem is that the name of spouse is "Andreas Kronthaler", which happens to be same as Q499034, but it is not the same person.
i do not know how to remove the link from the "spouse" property, but still keep the name. please help correct the problem i might have created. peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- You need to create a new item for Andreas Kronthaler --Pasleim (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
novalue edit
I can't find a discussion about using some special items (instances of marital status (Q1282093) like single person (Q908826), unmarried (Q28341938)) instead of "novalue". What are they for? Shouldn't all
be changed to "novalue"? --Infovarius (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
sv translation gemål edit
Sabelöga any major reason you changed to "gemål" for me "maka/make" is easier to work with - Salgo60 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's a gender neutral name like spouse and it looks ugly with the slash between maka / make. Besides, both maka and make are aliases so they still work. --Sabelöga (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sabelöga OK I see your point but its much slower when editing and I feel if we should trust Wikipedia sv:Gemål its outdated, mostly used about females and not what we use for common people - Salgo60 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Salgo60 How can it be slower when editing? Besides the Wikipedia article being out of date is irrelevant since the articles called make and maka are not up to date either. On the other hand, if what's written in the article is true and it's not used commonly between common people then it shouldn't be used. --Sabelöga (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sabelöga
- how can it be slower
- test write make and for me its not as fast as it was before, therefore I reacted speed and easy add things....
- my vote is it was better before but not excellent having "make/maka" this change adds confusion....
- how can it be slower
- see if someone else reacts like me...
- - Salgo60 (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't think I've actually heard someone use gemål in casual speech, so it might not be commonly known and cause some confusion. In that regard make/maka is not excellent but better. I'll change it back. --Sabelöga (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sabelöga
- Salgo60 How can it be slower when editing? Besides the Wikipedia article being out of date is irrelevant since the articles called make and maka are not up to date either. On the other hand, if what's written in the article is true and it's not used commonly between common people then it shouldn't be used. --Sabelöga (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sabelöga OK I see your point but its much slower when editing and I feel if we should trust Wikipedia sv:Gemål its outdated, mostly used about females and not what we use for common people - Salgo60 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Multiple marriages: name of wife - what to recommend to infobox designers edit
Consider Elaine Lagerkvist. She was married twice: Q108760600#P26. Supposedly she was best known as "Elaine Lagerkvist" so this would be her English label (and probably of most other languages). See Help:Label for what to use.
"Lagerkvist" is the family name of her second husband. In the infobox of her first husband (at sv:Gösta_Sandels_(konstnär)), the name "Elaine Lagerkvist" that appears currently isn't that useful, especially as she doesn't have an article in svwiki. Maybe the suggestion should be to display the birth name instead (Q108760600#P1477: "Elin Luella Hallberg"). For people with articles in a Wikipedia edition, maybe the name of the article could be displayed.
BTW the question isn't limited to svwiki, for other people it occurs in other infoboxes as well. --- Jura 07:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Unmarried partners used as values edit
Occasionally, I come across unmarried partners as P26 values. Obviously these should be added with unmarried partner (P451) instead.
I converted some, but others have references or seem to have been imported from somewhere else.
To avoid re-additions, I set the rank of the statement to deprecated and used reason for deprecated rank (P2241)=not married (Q109324480) as qualifier. --- Jura 21:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Rank for annulled marriages edit
At Q11617#P26, I set the annulled marriage to deprecated rank and used reason for deprecated rank (P2241)=annulment (Q759734) as qualifier.
Supposedly this wouldn't be applicable if there is civil divorce, but a religious annulment only. --- Jura 11:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Sultan's consorts edit
For Selim III (Q199633), there is a list of his 7 consorts at w:Selim_III#Family.
I added this with spouse (P26). It's at Q199633#P26.
The query below lists them:
- Items used: Selim III (Q199633)
- Properties used: date of death (P570) , place of death (P20) , place of burial (P119) , spouse (P26) , series ordinal (P1545)
SELECT
?ord
?consort ?consortLabel ?consortDescription
?died
?placeofdeath ?placeofdeathLabel
?placeofburial ?placeofburialLabel
WHERE
{
wd:Q199633 p:P26 ?st .
?st ps:P26 ?consort .
OPTIONAL { ?st pq:P1545 ?ord }
OPTIONAL { ?consort wdt:P570 ?died }
OPTIONAL { ?consort wdt:P20 ?placeofdeath }
OPTIONAL { ?consort wdt:P119 ?placeofburial }
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
--- Jura 11:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Statistics about missing P26 and a new database report: by number of identifiers edit
Similar to report for by number of sitelinks, there is now one by the number of identifiers. It's at:
For both, there are now statistics that evaluate how many items with more than 20 (sitelinks or identifiers) don't have P26. See #Statistics above.
Almost all items with 70 or more sitelinks now have P26 defined. --- Jura 10:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
New statistics: "Identifier on items and values" edit
See above #Identifier on items and values
It shows if, for couples, both have a given identifier.
For example, for items with The Peerage person ID (P4638) almost all spouses have the identifier as well (or 0.9% are currently missing it).
Initially I used identifiers from genealogical databases, but for comparison I added a few others. Surprisingly (to me), IMDb ranks fairly well at 32.7% without it.
If you are interested, you can added more identifiers. If the data pages don't exist, use the create links that appear on the right column with preload links.
Also, e.g. at Property_talk:P1819#P1819_on_values, there is a summary for that identifier and few properties.
Notified participants of WikiProject Genealogy --- Jura 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
For Template:Q42606 it is said to have violated this constraint. Given reason is: One was born no earlier than 1400ths century BC. The other died no later then 1351 BC. This will be due to a sign flaw. --Vollbracht (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Secondary Wife edit
How do we qualify a wife to be secondary wife? (Mutnofret (Q181985) was secondary wife of Thutmose I (Q157962). A pharaoh could have numerous secondary wives.) --Vollbracht (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- If they have the same status I would simply list them both. But if not, I'd probably use kinship to subject (P1039) as qualifier with "concubine" or similar for value. kinship to subject (P1039) is used for relative (P1038) so there is some precedent for it. If the relationship is the same status, but one was selected to become queen, I'd say perhaps object has role (P3831) would be more appropriate in that instance. Also I'm sure you are aware that there exist a property for unmarried partners as well. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Libellé français edit
@Fralambert: au moins en France, « conjoint » est (le plus souvent) spécifiquement de sens épicène. Quand on veut genrer, on dit « époux » ou « épouse » (« compagnon » ou « compagne » en l'absence de mariage). cordial.fr.
Bon en fait revenir à juste « conjoint » comme je viens de le faire n'est pas parfait même d'un point de vue français car au sens strict ça exclut les unions civiles (on doit se reposer sur la description pour clarifier). Cette propriété devrait rigoureusement s'appeler « conjoint ou partenaire d'union civile » c'est-à-dire « époux, épouse ou partenaire d'union civile ». En tout cas vu de France le substantif « conjointe » fait bizarre (c'est beaucoup moins employé qu' « épouse », « compagne », ou les plus familiers « femme », « copine ») et donne l'impression de doublonner le déjà épicène « conjoint ». GrandEscogriffe (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- wikt:conjoint[2] n'est pas épicène. Et le renommage était pour respecter Wikidata:Requests for comment/How to avoid to use male form as a generic form in property labels in French ?. Fralambert (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Sham marriages edit
Which qualifiers should be placed on spouse (P26) to model sham marriages that were entered for the purpose of naturalization? spouse (P26) of Lotte Laserstein (Q74642) currently shows warnings about the used qualifiers, but I don't know how else to encode the statement in Wikidata. --Sascha (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)