Wikidata:Property proposal/Married by

married by Edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person


Motivation Edit

Adds who officiated a wedding or performed the marriage, either as a qualifier on the marriage or as a property of the marriage. This is my first proposal, so if its done wrong please let me know. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion Edit

  •   Support Looks like a well-prepared proposal, thanks. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Infomuse (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support David (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose The description is inconsistent with the motivation. In cases of arranged marriages there's no indication in the description that this property shouldn't be used for the person who arranged the marriage. It's also not clear to me why this property needs to be specialized on marriage.
Maybe a general property named "officiated by" would be a better way to model the domain. ChristianKl❫ 07:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChristianKl: "Officiated by" and "Married by" both refer to the same topic, wedding officiant (Q2661159). I just labeled this as married by since it is a more common phrasing. For arranged marriages, they are arranged by someone and married by someone else (though they can be the same person). Sorry if the description wasn't clear about that. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When creating a property it's important to point to a clear concept, that stays clear when it gets translated into other languages that might have another tradition about what common phrasings happen to be. It's also important to investigate whether there are other relationships that are officiated in a similar way and whether the property might be created to cover them as well. ChristianKl❫ 19:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose To specialised. I would prefer a more general property for "officiant" or "officiated by" to use for all ceremonies which have an officiant. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •   Comment People used to use "location" as qualifier for spouse (P26) to indicate the place of marriage. Obviously, that was nonsense as the statement is about the spouse and not the marriage ceremony. At least as a qualifier for P26, I don't think a more general one could work. Still, if the participants of the ceremony are deemed notable, maybe it's a good reason to make a separate item about it. There participants can be listed and qualified with existing properties. --- Jura 16:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems we miss a "wedding" qualifier – or I think "effectuating ceremony" would be better (more general) – to use with spouse (P26). There is now for instance
but you cannot see how that event relates to the spouse. With a "effectuating ceremony" qualifier the details of the wedding ceremony could be in the item for the wedding. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couldn't statement is subject of (P805) be used in such cases? --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
: Yes, but that still leaves the issue of a property for who married the couple, and this only helps for the 29 items that are instance of (P31) wedding (Q49836). --DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't like this pattern of storing information about a wedding in qualifiers of the spouse (P26) property. place of marriage (P2842) was created (with 3 supporting and 3 against), and there's technically a lot of other data that could be included about weddings (type of wedding, budget/cost, images, witnesses, vow text, contract text, dowry, hosting institution, associated pre-wedding events, assorted participants, and so on). Each of these would require new dedicated properties if the data is to be stored as qualifiers to P26. --Yair rand (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Initial oppose Person who marries ... The quantity is already restricted, but the info is secondary compared to the act itself. Notoriety and relevance of such a property: if you find 100 entries and that in addition it can be interesting, I change my vote! Furthermore, this information can be included in WD otherwise. --Eihel (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment I agree with Yair rand that information about the wedding shouldn't be in qualifiers for spouse (P26). Besides that it will require dedicated qualifiers, it will also duplicate the data if placed in the items for both spouses. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Withdrawn there is obviously no consensus to create this property --DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]