Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 14

183:'fiance', 'life partner', 'significant other', etc.. Using the word 'partner' in this manner is novel. When I see the word 'partner' I think of one of two things - a business partner or a homosexual couple in a committed long term romantic relationship. I haven't found any discussions regarding this topic and am curious why this change in usage has occured. I think using 'girlfriend', 'boyfriend', 'fiance', 'life partner', 'significant other', etc.. conveys important information and should be used whenever this information is known instead of the word 'partner.' For example within the infobox for the biography for Justin Theroux he is referred to Jennifer Aniston's 'partner'. They are engaged and is her fiance, prior to that they were dating for two years. Dating someone for a few years doesn't make them a 'partner' in the sense of a 'life partner' and it might not even make them a 'sexual partner' but it would qualify as a 'boyfriend/girlfriend' 31: 922:"Cop-out" applies to leaving the label "Spouse(s):" in place. Readers are not served by an implied ambiguity in number, where reliable sources do not state or imply any such ambiguity. You deliberately refuse to see the problem, and even more deliberately refuse to consider a solution, instead, calling it a "cop-out". So, the status quo is a no better: cop-out. 1575:-- Domestic partnerships are regarded as legally relevant in many jurisdictions outside of the USA. Also, I didn't say it was "equal to" marriage, that's just some strawman you made up. However, to emphasize the meaning of marriage to the point of giving it a separate parameter in the template is entirely absurd. This applies even more to the average 1671:(where applicable) that the partnership included marriage. This would retain all the information with regard to marriages of the person, and it would rid us of complications resulting from cases like the ones mentioned above, as well as the even greater issue of potential NPOV/OR conflicts resulting from the blanket emphasis on marriage which 531:), so the display speed of the article will be unaffected during edit-preview of the {infobox_person}. If there are no objections, then I will submit an {editprotected} request to have an admin install the change to handle the 3 spouse parameters. I want to thank everyone for noting the need to fix those parameters from the past 5 years. - 659:. Yes, some editors may put the wrong parameter, but this is easily noticeable and correctable (just like the many code SNAFUs that crop up all the time). I don't think we should avoid a slightly technical solution just because some editors will harmlessly put the wrong value. Avoiding (s) on all fields is a worthwhile goal. — 778:

infoboxen have generic placeholders and the (s) idiom is widely used and understood. I think leaving things as they are is in fact the route to least offence. (Having said that, writing a suitable bot would be a fun project for someone and would do no harm, so I think it would be fine if somebody can do that). --

1343:

strongly cautions the use of collapsible elements, and many editors object to their usage. I think adding it as an option, will simply create another thing for the pro/anti-infobox people to argue about (ie. whether or not to set the default as "collapsed", in any given article). How exactly would it

1103:

know. And when we do know, we should use the appropriate label, singular or plural. Simple as that. There was a lot of misdirection and distraction from the main point above, and everybody went along with that, just trotted right along. If template editors don't want to be bothered getting the names

673:

That's what I'm wondering: why avoiding (s) is a worthwhile goal. Lexein wrote above that it's inappropriate because we know how many spouses there are, but we don't for living people. And for dead people, where we do know the number, I can't see what difference the (s) makes. It's obvious to readers

850:

one, so say that to the infobox film community. It avoids needless clutter, confusion, and error, and has served infobox film quite well, for a "cop-out". Who does it serve to constantly have multiple spouses suggested when there was only one? When one's sole wife, reads one's Knowledge biography to

596:

As discussed at VPT, this is a social issue. It should be resolved by social means involving user education and tracking categories rather than overwrought technical means. People should be wary not to assign the above steamrollering (80% of the previous discussion is by the same editor) more weight

182:

It seems there has been a universal change when describing a person's identity within the context of a romantic relationship to the word 'partner', however 'partner' isn't a neutral term and it is rarely an accurate description. For instance, instead of using terms such as 'girlfriend', 'boyfriend',

1729:

An RfC here seems the best way. I wouldn't use the rationale that IP user 87.79.108.198 proposed, though; the separation of partnership and marriage is a historically significant point of view. I would justify the change to solve the base problem that the current parameters force an unnatural split

1013:

One could quite easily make the case that one's ex-wife may not appreciate being written out of a subject's life as soon as he remarries. But that's an argument for another day. I certainly wouldn't simply assume that the film project knows best: the film project is notoriously resistant to changes

486:

A survey of 3,000 articles containing "name occupation spouse" revealed that 93 (~3.1%) used unsupported parameter name "spouses=" (plural), with nothing displayed. There has also been a request to detect and show singular "Spouse" when just one. The most-common multiple listing of spouses seems to

1670:

As non-standard solutions are not a promising approach when it comes to handling infobox parameters, especially on highly visible articles, I would definitely support a solution that deprecates the Spouse parameter in favor of listing all relationships under the Partner parameter and simply noting

1080:

Removing information on the name of a subject's partner from the infobox entirely would be a very significant move, and proposing it for the sake of a trivial quibble over which names to include would be counterproductive. it's not going to happen, at least in the short term. This conversation is

965:

I for one am happy to assume that our readers can count with a proficiency sufficient to distinguish "one" from "more than one". I don't see anyone else here supporting your various assertions. Unless you can demonstrate consensus for the change you're proposing, we'll stay with the status quo. I

549:

If we are going to have alternative parameters, then I would forget completely about trying to make the template parse for singular or plural contents. Set a bot on the job, it can use much more sophisticated heuristics, for example recognising when only a typical date range follows a line break.

1655:

It is information, but this is the infobox we're talking about. Clarity and brevity, and as I pointed out above, especially relevance in the context of the person's life should imho govern the way info is included there. Anyway, as a compromise, yours is a sound proposal to which I won't object.

1744:

Whatever works for you. I see these as multiple valid points in the argument to unify the parameters. If the obvious impracticality of having two parameters convinces more people, fine by me. I (=all the IPs that have commented in this section) still believe that the separate Spouse parameter's

569:

Even after setting specific parameters, some editors will accidentally use the singular, when actually needing plural, so the auto-detection would still be needed. There has been a similar problem with the cite templates, regarding plural pages/page, where editors of almost 45,000 articles have

253:

I propose the parameter net_worth should be removed. This encourages ridiculous speculation, and the comment "Net worth should be supported with a citation from a reliable source" is almost laughable - what is a "reliable source" for someone's net worth? Many of the ones I have seen come from

1411:

and Benjamin Millepied have been a couple since 2009, but they married in 2012. The infobox on Portman's article only uses the spouse parameter and gives the date as "Benjamin Millepied (2012–present)". Given the current parameters, this is actually correct, since the spouse parameter is based

728:

It's worthwhile because you would never see it in a professional publication, only in a simplistic database-type site. We're not a database so we should care about the "little things" when it comes to editorial style. It's such a simple switch there's no reason not to do it other than inertia.

612:

As to the p vs pp issue I coded a solution for that years ago, but the cite templates creaked under the weight of another straw. Certainly we try to avoid (s) wherever possible, but a bot task would probably be better than an NLP solution, and indeed would be a good ongoing companion, since a

777:

Sorry, I'm not going to be at all happy with that, it effectively gives some married couples a subordinate status to others and would, I suspect, be practically speaking unenforceable. Very few people will be seriously confused or offended by xyz(s): if they are they must be told clearly that

1363:(Her main infobox is for being a singer, but information about her personal life is relevant, and not a field in the infobox. So I added an infobox person to show personal fields, including her legal name. Having a option would look nicer.) I think it would just come in useful to some. 1242:

will contain more than one entry, and it's yet to be established that there's anything egregious about (s) in the first place. It's hard to argue therefore that adding a bunch of new and hairy conditional code to one of the project's most transcluded infoboxes would be a net benefit.

459:

Not at all. The majority of fields it is perfectly legitimate to stick with singular or plural - either because plural covers singular (children, for example) or because we choose to only ever have one entry (autograph, website) or because singular covers plural (name, nationality).

1598:

non-married partnerships that person has been in? There, the bold part, that's our main criterion here: Relevance in the context of the person's life. Not some normative nonsense, and not some legal considerations which may or may not be important in the context of that person's

1520:

Which begs the question: Are partners whom a person marries "former" partners? That's part of why the distinction between the Spouse and Partner parameters is quite nonsensical, even for Americans (see my examples) who often get married and divorced at the drop of a hat.

550:

Once the bot has tidied things up, there will be no need for template-time content parsing. That means there would be no need for |spouse1= which is also an unnecessary complication. The condition for displaying could then be "display spouse or spouses or nothing". --

198:

Given the impossibility of distinguishing, much less reliably sourcing, all the different possible relationship types, for all of the applicable Knowledge subjects, the current parameters represent the best we are likely to achieve. The status quo is thus fine by me.

689:

how many spouses a living person has at any given moment, or has ever had (if we don't know, reliably sourced, then the parameter should be left blank, surely). To state "Spouse(s):" when there has ever been only one, reads as silly on the face of it. It also

1108:, rather than labeling discussion hostile. Infoboxes should state the truth of the moment as established by reliable sources, regardless of (perceived) inconvenience. If reliable sources don't say "spouses(s)" like census forms, then neither should we. -- 932:

information for the infobox: all detail about a spouse or multiple spouses belongs in the prose. Infoboxes are a fillip, a gift, intended to capsule-summarize verified information contained in the prose. Why should the infobox add ambiguity? It should

1689:

While that may be the best compromise, it's still likely to be controversial, and should therefore be discussed centrally before being implemented. Any such discussion should be about a policy for all our biographical infoboxes, not just this one.

1745:

emphasis on marriage poses an NPOV and OR problem with regard to individual articles. While it's true that marriage is a historically significant point of view, this fact may be entirely irrelevant in the context of a person's life.

1569:-- Ok, if you say so. "The partner parameter should only be used if it's a current relationship" to me sounds an awful lot like you really did not read the template documentation before posting your initial reply. It still does. 574:

been a clear explanation that using "pages=" versus "page=" has meant a plural set of pages. In the event of a 2nd marriage, then many editors are likely to just add a second name to the current "spouse=" (without changing to

1358:

I've come across a few. It's nice to have when the infobox is very long. Well, the infobox would not be collapsed as default. Just give an editor the option if an infobox is too long, or for what I would need it for, on

269:

I defy anyone to show me a net worth quoted in a person infobox which is demonstrably based on "an individual's net economic position ... the value of all assets (long term assets) minus the value of all liabilities."

522:. So, that issue will be reduced, as well. The need to handle plural "spouses=" has been a problem for over 5 years. The final concern is "efficiency" of the revised template, which seems fine, because the underlying 1551:

equal to a marriage. A marriage is legally binding. As for Letterman's, I don't think that his spouses or partner should even be in the infobox at all because they aren't notable. But, again, that's just my opinion.

1488:. He and Regina Lasko have been together since 1986, but only got married in 2009. So what you are saying is that the infobox should explicitly state their relationship as starting in 2009, disregarding the first 579:="), and that would be fine because the template would auto-detect the plural. Hence, auto-detection will also fix future problems, with no need to authorize a Bot-edit-request to change over 89,000 articles. - 516:

There are many thousands of articles where the auto-detection of singular name can show "Spouse" without the distraction of "Spouse(s)" which often seems to imply the children's names are other spouse

188: 265:

In personal finance, net worth (or wealth) refers to an individual's net economic position; similarly, it uses the value of all assets (long term assets) minus the value of all liabilities.

1432:

Or we could unify the spouse and partner parameters, which I for one would vastly prefer, since status of marriage is of exceedingly minor import compared to the relationship itself. --

526:

already has a template-expansion depth of 20 levels, and checking for spouse/spouse1/spouses would use only 8 levels still within those 20. The logic to detect line-break "<br: -->

490: 184: 796:

of things we don't list multiples of in infoboxes, like multiple film release dates. I don't think multiple spouses should go in the infobox, but instead should go in the article.

613:

template solution can be optimised on the basis that most "spouse=" are correct - thanks to the bot - and can return the favour by flagging dubious constructs for the bot to fix.

162:

Works fine for me. Are you sure you've using "infobox person": the last biography I see you edited before posting here uses "infobox writer", which doesn't have that parameter.

1412:

exclusively on marital status. But isn't it very awkward that the infobox just ignores the verifiable fact that they have been a couple for three years before their marriage?

219: 1477:, since 2009. They married in 2012. So what you're saying is that the infobox should explicitly state that their relationship began in 2012, without mentioning the first 1715:

I completely agree. I was considering starting an RfC here, with notifications on all the relevant boards and template talk pages. Or would you suggest another venue? --

1437: 1637:

This avoids the redundancy of having the same person listed twice, but doesn't completely dismiss the difference between legal marriage and de-facto partnership (which

1526: 1513:— For unmarried life partners (of any gender or sexual preference), not business partners. Use the format Name (1950–present) for current partner and Name (1970–1999) 1497: 401:

I see that the /sandbox version has the singular form label already, but it's not clear how to properly add a spouses= parameter to test. Something to do with #if. --

1031:

Written out? WTF? Nobody said that. Infobox: Married/Single. Prose: Talk about all the marriages and divorces and annulments and partnerships and singleness you want.

1661: 1611: 1748:

If I'm the one to start the RfC, I think I'll be listing both of these points as part of the argument, since both points are perfectly valid as far as I can see. --

313: 1753: 471: 624: 1724: 1710: 1650: 638: 356: 1447:

The partner parameter should only be used if it's a current relationship (but past ones can be mentioned in body). Spouse parameter is for past and present. --

1287: 1252: 1227: 1192: 877:. However, I'm concerned with what serves our readers, and data re-users, not just editors, and not your esoteric assertion of what female readers will think. 293:

Agree; though perhaps for dead people we should have a "value of estate" parameter, becuase such figures are usually more fixed and given by reliable sources.

1665: 1456: 1757: 1739: 1684: 1561: 1530: 1506:

Moreover, you're clearly wrong in stating that the "partner parameter should only be used if it's a current relationship". The template's documentation says:

1501: 243: 1615: 273:

This parameter seems to me at risk of bringing wikipedia into disrepute, because it presents something that is unprovable as if it were encyclopaedic fact.

1441: 986: 960: 897: 868: 841: 680: 668: 454: 436: 946:

You have failed to prove that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia imply an uncertainty, when reliable sources assert that there is no such uncertainty.

528: 1117: 1090: 1051: 1023: 171: 723: 738: 559: 1380: 1353: 816: 787: 588: 1331: 540: 488:" but some break-wrap the line just for years, so a 3rd parameter as "spouse1=" could force the singular label "Spouse" even when using "<br: --> 874: 758:

singular only, in the infobox. If there have been several marriages due to divorce, death, annulment, or plural marriage, it goes in the article,

192: 156: 1177: 276:

Clearly, the situation is different to that of publicly quoted companies, who have accounting statements which are audited and published.

943:

necessitates, if labeled, labeling with matching number (singular or plural): that's just per MOS, and the rules of the English language.

319: 606: 1415:

So there are basically two ways ahead. I could either take the parameters at face value and edit Portman's infobox to accurately read:

287: 137: 1299: 771: 410: 239: 1626:

It might be a good idea to unify both fields in some cases, but not in the way that you propose. I would write the above case as:

1267:

for single entries is, as a wise person notes about a related issue above, a social issue and should be resolved by social means.

821:

That's a cop-out, not a solution, and does not serve the readers of articles whose subjects have had one or more notable spouses.

374:

seems less appropriate for an encyclopedia than for a blank form, where the number of spouses is not known in advance. Since we

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1433: 1388: 1522: 1493: 142: 1706: 1657: 1607: 1283: 1223: 1173: 982: 893: 837: 432: 309: 235: 215: 133: 1749: 1716: 1676: 324:

I know it's possible to add the switch to the template, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do it.

445:

Agreed. Tedious, I imagine. Spouse may be the most commonly used optional plural, so maybe do that first? --

47: 17: 1308: 341: 1014:

to its templates, but it has eventually budged on points of greater consensus on a number of occasions.

416:

This is not specific to spouse(s); the same could be said of any parameter with a parenthetical plural.

714:

a spouse. Compare "cast": appropriate for singular or plural use, for a solo show or ensemble show. --

283: 38: 618: 465: 352: 225: 1465:

Sorry, but that makes little to no sense. Consider my example case: Portman and Millepied have been

702:

as (s) implies. As I said, it resembles the heading for a blank form, when the number of spouses is

710:

is a worthwhile goal because there's no common English single word for the group of all people who

489:" that looked like multiple spouses. To implement all 3 parameters, I have created sandbox version 1702: 1279: 1219: 1169: 978: 889: 833: 428: 361: 331: 305: 211: 147:

the "death_cause" part does not work. I tried to put it in and it wasn't visible on the preview.

129: 1720: 1680: 1248: 1188: 1086: 1037:

Whoosh: single/plural issues have been sorted, so there's no excuse for not sorting this one.

1019: 602: 279: 1730:

in each single relationship, that currently must be listed twice as pre- and post-marriage.

1735: 1646: 615: 462: 348: 254:

Forbes - but how does Forbes arrive at these figures? It is just a lot of speculation.

8: 734: 664: 231: 167: 105: 1693: 1579:

marriage, which quite frequently isn't worth the Vegas chapel papers it was printed on.

1557: 1452: 1349: 1270: 1261: 1236: 1210: 1201: 1160: 1151: 969: 880: 824: 783: 555: 419: 296: 202: 152: 120: 584: 536: 248: 632:

Is there a problem with just saying "spouse(s)"? That looks like a simple solution.

1373: 1324: 1244: 1207:

ensures the generation of the semantically and accessibly proper HTML list markup.

1184: 1141: 1113: 1082: 1081:

getting increasingly hostile for no particular reason, so I think we're done here.

1047: 1015: 956: 864: 812: 767: 719: 598: 523: 450: 406: 114: 1731: 1642: 1485: 1408: 675: 633: 177: 694:

where there is none inherent in the condition: the duly wed typically vow to be

261:

page is almost entirely about companies, but it has one line about individuals:

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1360: 730: 660: 163: 1257:

Granted that the existence of a problem has yet to be established. The use of

1553: 1448: 1345: 779: 551: 148: 1157:, as an indicator of multiple values, and switch labels when it is present? 1606:

is obviously unacceptable. If that is not obvious to you, that's on you. --

1603: 1583: 1547:." I gave my opinion just like you gave yours. A "domestic partnership" is 1340: 754:

There's too much controversy, so I suggest the principle of least offense:

580: 532: 234:

as to whether the article should nave an infobox or not have an infobox? --

378:

know the number, the parenthetical plural is unnecessary. So, I propose:

1365: 1316: 1109: 1043: 952: 860: 808: 763: 715: 509:"spouse1=" - always shows "Spouse" singular, regardless of commas/breaks 446: 402: 1337:

Do any instances of the videogame infobox actually utilize this feature?

1104:

of things, and the counts of things, right, they should be honest about

570:

incorrectly set plural "pp." for a singular page, even though there has

807:

of spouses should go in the article only. There: no discrimination. --

258: 257:

Additionally, what does "net worth" actually mean? Knowledge's own

1590:

married partnership a person has had is of categorically different

674:

that it's a generic infobox that we apply to different situations.

484:

Already using "spouses=" as 3 per 100 and need "spouse1=" singular:

873:

I don't doubt that the cop-out serves the infobox film community

370:

spousal parameters, one singular, one plural? The parenthesized

1403:

For unmarried life partners (of any gender or sexual preference)

685:

What do you mean "we don't for living people"? We do know

1543:

I know what the template page says. That's why I said "

651:

is much more obscure and subtle than incorrectly using

347:. I tried just including it, but it doesn't display. 567:

Some editors forget to choose plural spouses/spouse:

327:I'd like to add the standard education switch for 760:not the infobox, and the parameter is left blank. 1632:Benjamin Millepied (2009–present, married 2012). 1397:Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage 230:Can any neutral third party offer an opinion at 798:In fact, I'll go further: only latest marriage 802:(married, divorced) should go in the infobox. 1183:Possible? Perhaps. A net benefit? Doubtful. 951:There's really no clearer way to say it. -- 502:"spouse=" - auto-detects break "<br: --> 506:"spouses=" - always shows "Spouses" plural 113:doesn't seem to be working; at least on 1034:Film knows best? WTF? Nobody said that. 1028:I have two wtf's and a whoosh for you. 14: 1232:Because there's no guarantee that the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1095:Well, it's still silly to imply that 1675:make sense in a person's article. -- 1407:This leads to situations like this: 25: 1567:I know what the template page says. 1245:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) 1185:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) 1083:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) 1016:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) 599:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) 320:Add Education to Infobox Theologian 23: 1582:Moreover and even more crucially, 1099:spouses a person has had, when we 24: 1779: 1602:Also, to emphasize marriage over 1422:Benjamin Millepied (2012–present) 762:This keeps the infobox simple. -- 1300:Can we add a collapsible option? 491:Template:Infobox_person/sandbox2 29: 1492:years of their relationship? -- 1484:Another, even worse example is 1573:A marriage is legally binding. 1428:Benjamin Millepied (2009–2012) 527:" runs only 1/40 second (with 503:" as "Spouse(s)" else "Spouse" 236:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 138:20:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 13: 1: 1758:22:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 1740:13:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 1725:18:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 1711:18:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 1685:18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 1666:06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 1651:19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1616:07:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 1592:import for that person's life 1562:18:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1531:08:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1502:07:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1457:01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1442:23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1389:Spouse and Partner parameters 1118:01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC) 712:are now or who have ever been 357:13:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC) 314:09:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC) 288:19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC) 1381:01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 1354:01:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 1332:23:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 1288:11:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 1253:09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 1228:22:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 1193:10:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 1178:12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 1091:14:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 1052:12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 1024:11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 987:12:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 961:12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 898:11:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 869:01:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 846:If it's a "cop-out", it's a 842:22:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 817:20:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 788:05:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 772:04:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 739:02:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC) 724:04:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 681:03:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 669:02:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 639:01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 625:00:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 607:22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 589:15:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 560:11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 541:10:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 472:01:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 455:08:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 437:08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 411:07:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 244:15:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 220:12:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 193:01:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 18:Template talk:Infobox person 7: 172:11:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC) 157:09:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC) 10: 1784: 1147:to detect the presence of 939:Naming a single or plural 185:Gorillazebramonkeyelephant 1197:Why doubtful? The use of 1137:Would it be possible for 143:Clearly something's wrong 700:one of a possible series 643:The distinction between 966:think we're done here. 1481:of their relationship? 1097:we don't know how many 698:partner for life, not 692:imposes an uncertainty 1515:for former partner(s) 42:of past discussions. 1683:) (=87.79.108.198) 853:Spouse(s) = (name) 848:community consensus 493:, altering label55: 487:use "<br...: --> 232:Stephen H. Wendover 1309:Infobox video game 597:than it deserves. 342:infobox theologian 1584:who are we to say 1304:Like there is in 679: 637: 628: 529:Template:Has_char 475: 226:Infobox consensus 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1775: 1709: 1700: 1696: 1574: 1568: 1516: 1379: 1376: 1370: 1330: 1327: 1321: 1313: 1307: 1286: 1277: 1273: 1266: 1260: 1241: 1235: 1226: 1217: 1213: 1206: 1200: 1176: 1167: 1163: 1156: 1150: 1146: 1140: 985: 976: 972: 896: 887: 883: 840: 831: 827: 678: 636: 623: 524:Template:Infobox 470: 435: 426: 422: 346: 340: 336: 330: 312: 303: 299: 280:NoMatterTryAgain 218: 209: 205: 136: 127: 123: 115:Enrique Granados 112: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1698: 1692: 1691: 1572: 1566: 1514: 1486:David Letterman 1434:213.168.109.165 1409:Natalie Portman 1391: 1374: 1366: 1364: 1325: 1317: 1315: 1311: 1305: 1302: 1275: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1258: 1239: 1233: 1215: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1198: 1165: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1148: 1144: 1138: 974: 968: 967: 925:Married/single 885: 879: 878: 829: 823: 822: 424: 418: 417: 364: 362:Spouse, Spouses 349:ReformedArsenal 344: 338: 334: 328: 322: 301: 295: 294: 251: 228: 207: 201: 200: 180: 145: 125: 119: 118: 110: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1781: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1746: 1673:may or may not 1668: 1641:information). 1635: 1634: 1633: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1600: 1580: 1570: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1523:213.168.108.17 1518: 1507: 1504: 1494:213.168.108.17 1482: 1460: 1459: 1430: 1429: 1423: 1405: 1404: 1398: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1361:Jennifer Lopez 1338: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1032: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 949: 948: 947: 944: 937: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 855:. Spouse(s)? 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 629: 594: 593: 592: 591: 563: 562: 544: 543: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 507: 504: 495: 494: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 457: 440: 439: 399: 398: 389: 363: 360: 332:infobox person 321: 318: 317: 316: 250: 247: 227: 224: 223: 222: 179: 176: 175: 174: 144: 141: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1780: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699:Pigsonthewing 1695: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1669: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1658:87.79.108.198 1654: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1625: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1608:87.79.108.198 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1578: 1571: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1519: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1427: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1413: 1410: 1402: 1399: 1396: 1393: 1392: 1382: 1377: 1371: 1369: 1362: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1342: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1328: 1322: 1320: 1310: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1276:Pigsonthewing 1272: 1263: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1238: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1216:Pigsonthewing 1212: 1203: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166:Pigsonthewing 1162: 1153: 1143: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 988: 984: 980: 975:Pigsonthewing 971: 964: 963: 962: 958: 954: 950: 945: 942: 938: 936: 931: 928: 924: 923: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 899: 895: 891: 886:Pigsonthewing 882: 876: 872: 871: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 849: 845: 844: 843: 839: 835: 830:Pigsonthewing 826: 820: 819: 818: 814: 810: 806: 803: 801: 795: 791: 790: 789: 785: 781: 776: 775: 774: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 740: 736: 732: 727: 726: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 688: 684: 683: 682: 677: 672: 671: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 641: 640: 635: 631: 630: 626: 621: 620: 617: 611: 610: 609: 608: 604: 600: 590: 586: 582: 578: 573: 568: 565: 564: 561: 557: 553: 548: 547: 546: 545: 542: 538: 534: 530: 525: 521: 520: 515: 508: 505: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 492: 485: 482: 481: 473: 468: 467: 464: 458: 456: 452: 448: 444: 443: 442: 441: 438: 434: 430: 425:Pigsonthewing 421: 415: 414: 413: 412: 408: 404: 397: 394: 390: 388: 385: 381: 380: 379: 377: 373: 369: 359: 358: 354: 350: 343: 333: 325: 315: 311: 307: 302:Pigsonthewing 298: 292: 291: 290: 289: 285: 281: 277: 274: 271: 267: 266: 262: 260: 255: 246: 245: 241: 237: 233: 221: 217: 213: 208:Pigsonthewing 204: 197: 196: 195: 194: 190: 186: 173: 169: 165: 161: 160: 159: 158: 154: 150: 140: 139: 135: 131: 126:Pigsonthewing 122: 116: 111:|other-names= 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1750:89.0.200.158 1717:78.35.245.52 1707:Andy's edits 1703:Talk to Andy 1694:Andy Mabbett 1677:78.35.245.52 1672: 1638: 1629: 1604:civil unions 1595: 1591: 1587: 1576: 1548: 1544: 1510: 1490:twenty-three 1489: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1431: 1425: 1419: 1414: 1406: 1400: 1394: 1367: 1341:MOS:COLLAPSE 1318: 1303: 1284:Andy's edits 1280:Talk to Andy 1271:Andy Mabbett 1224:Andy's edits 1220:Talk to Andy 1211:Andy Mabbett 1174:Andy's edits 1170:Talk to Andy 1161:Andy Mabbett 1136: 1105: 1100: 1096: 983:Andy's edits 979:Talk to Andy 970:Andy Mabbett 940: 934: 929: 926: 894:Andy's edits 890:Talk to Andy 881:Andy Mabbett 859:bullshit. -- 856: 852: 847: 838:Andy's edits 834:Talk to Andy 825:Andy Mabbett 804: 799: 797: 793: 759: 755: 753: 711: 708:Avoiding (s) 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 686: 656: 652: 648: 644: 614: 595: 576: 571: 566: 518: 517: 483: 461: 433:Andy's edits 429:Talk to Andy 420:Andy Mabbett 400: 395: 392: 386: 383: 382:spouse = 375: 371: 367: 366:Can we have 365: 326: 323: 310:Andy's edits 306:Talk to Andy 297:Andy Mabbett 278: 275: 272: 268: 264: 263: 256: 252: 229: 216:Andy's edits 212:Talk to Andy 203:Andy Mabbett 181: 146: 134:Andy's edits 130:Talk to Andy 121:Andy Mabbett 109: 78: 43: 37: 1479:three years 391:spouses= 106:other_names 36:This is an 1511:partner(s) 1426:Partner(s) 1401:partner(s) 930:sufficient 792:There are 676:SlimVirgin 634:SlimVirgin 619:Farmbrough 466:Farmbrough 372:Spouse(s): 98:Archive 20 90:Archive 16 85:Archive 15 79:Archive 14 73:Archive 13 68:Archive 12 60:Archive 10 1630:Spouse(s) 1420:Spouse(s) 1395:spouse(s) 1262:plainlist 1237:plainlist 1202:Plainlist 1152:Plainlist 731:Designate 687:precisely 661:Designate 259:Net worth 249:Net worth 164:DrKiernan 1577:American 1554:Musdan77 1467:together 1449:Musdan77 1346:Quiddity 941:anything 780:Mirokado 706:known. 552:Mirokado 396:Spouses: 393:produces 384:produces 149:Pdiddyjr 1471:an item 1344:help? – 1142:infobox 756:Spouse: 657:spouses 647:versus 581:Wikid77 575:"spouse 533:Wikid77 387:Spouse: 178:Partner 39:archive 1545:should 1475:a pair 1368:Statυs 1319:Statυs 1110:Lexein 1044:Lexein 953:Lexein 861:Lexein 857:That's 809:Lexein 800:status 764:Lexein 716:Lexein 653:spouse 572:always 447:Lexein 403:Lexein 1732:Diego 1643:Diego 1599:life. 1594:than 1586:that 805:Names 16:< 1754:talk 1736:talk 1721:talk 1681:talk 1662:talk 1647:talk 1612:talk 1558:talk 1527:talk 1498:talk 1453:talk 1438:talk 1375:talk 1350:talk 1326:talk 1249:talk 1189:talk 1114:talk 1106:that 1087:talk 1048:talk 1020:talk 957:talk 935:not. 875:well 865:talk 851:see 813:talk 794:lots 784:talk 768:talk 735:talk 720:talk 665:talk 655:vs. 616:Rich 603:talk 585:talk 556:talk 537:talk 463:Rich 451:talk 407:talk 353:talk 284:talk 240:talk 189:talk 168:talk 153:talk 1701:); 1596:any 1588:any 1549:not 1278:); 1218:); 1168:); 977:); 888:); 832:); 704:not 696:the 649:pp. 519:(s) 427:); 368:two 337:to 304:); 210:); 128:); 1756:) 1738:) 1723:) 1705:; 1664:) 1656:-- 1649:) 1639:is 1614:) 1560:) 1552:-- 1529:) 1521:-- 1517:." 1500:) 1473:, 1469:, 1455:) 1440:) 1352:) 1314:? 1312:}} 1306:{{ 1282:; 1265:}} 1259:{{ 1251:) 1240:}} 1234:{{ 1222:; 1205:}} 1199:{{ 1191:) 1172:; 1155:}} 1149:{{ 1145:}} 1139:{{ 1116:) 1101:do 1089:) 1050:) 1042:-- 1022:) 981:; 959:) 927:is 892:; 867:) 836:; 815:) 786:) 770:) 737:) 722:) 667:) 645:p. 622:, 605:) 587:) 558:) 539:) 469:, 453:) 431:; 409:) 376:do 355:) 345:}} 339:{{ 335:}} 329:{{ 308:; 286:) 242:) 214:; 191:) 170:) 155:) 132:; 117:. 94:→ 64:← 1752:( 1734:( 1719:( 1697:( 1679:( 1660:( 1645:( 1610:( 1556:( 1525:( 1509:" 1496:( 1451:( 1436:( 1378:) 1372:( 1348:( 1329:) 1323:( 1274:( 1247:( 1214:( 1187:( 1164:( 1112:( 1085:( 1046:( 1018:( 973:( 955:( 884:( 863:( 828:( 811:( 782:( 766:( 733:( 729:— 718:( 663:( 627:. 601:( 583:( 577:s 554:( 535:( 474:. 449:( 423:( 405:( 351:( 300:( 282:( 238:( 206:( 187:( 166:( 151:( 124:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index