Rename the _NMR tag from "Not Married" to "Partner

kiwi:
Good idea. Presumably all it needs is language changes, especially in the GEDCOM tag list?

ToyGuy:
While partner can be defined as a member of an intimate relationship, how does the term cover the following situations?
1) One night stand //not exactly a relationship, nor necessarily intimate
2) Sperm donor
3) Egg donor
4) Surrogate
5) Rapist

Kiwi:
It wouldn't, but does that matter? Whilst they do describe possible paternity, in most cases they are things / people I would probably add as a note, rather than as a relationship.
There may however be a larger issue - do we want to start down the road of re-defining GEDCOM tags? Might it make it difficult later to refuse other similar requests? There is something to be said for having the GEDCOM spec as a basis for decision making.

[volschin] I agree with Toyguy, _NMR is often used in situations, the father is known but the child is illegitimate. To translate this with partner would be completely wrong.

[greg]: OK - a slightly different question. In my gedcom, I have 70 _NMR records. 69 of them are "Partners". Couples living together, almost all with children. I have only one of ToyGuy's five examples. On the PF&D page, on the relationship charts, etc., many people have told me they want their relationship described by what it is, not by what it is not. How should we record these relationships? A different tag altogether?

[dave]: I don't think redefining a tag (even an unofficial one) is the best solution for this. What about using something like _PART for partners and then you have the choice of 'unmarried' or 'partners'?

[greg] <<What about using something like _PART for partners>>. We currently have lots of logic that checks for _NMR. For example, the family navigator uses it to choose between "Wife" and "Partner". If we have _PART => Partner, then what should we show for a _NMR relationship?

[dave]: Having had another look at this I think that the use of the _NMR tag suggests some form of union between two people other than marriage. Partner would then best describe this. In the 'other' cases mentioned above could the use of the _NMAR tag (never married) be used?

[greg]: IIRC, _NMAR is an INDI tag, whereas _NMR is a FAM tag. Does anybody know how other applications (FTM, BK, etc.) handle this distinction?

[dave]: Quite right greg; INDI tag.
Family Tree Maker, Genealogica Grafica and (I think) Brothers Keeper use _MSTAT to qualify, well, marriage status I suppose.

1 _MSTAT (e.g. Unknown, Single, Partners)

[kiwi]: Greg said two things that seem to point to the answer (to me anyway):
1 - <<many people have told me they want their relationship described by what it is, not by what it is not.>> That means the question is about DISPLAYING not RECORDING the information.
2 - <<We currently have lots of logic that checks for _NMR. For example, the family navigator uses it to choose between "Wife" and "Partner".>> So why can't we simply extend the same logic to the rest of the display screens?

[dave]:<< That means the question is about DISPLAYING not RECORDING the information.>>
What is displayed is determined by webtrees interpretation of the Gedcom tag. I'm in full agreement that the use of 'partner' to describe an unmarried relationship is far preferable to 'not married' and I can easily accomodate the proposed change into my own installation. But what happens when webtrees is launched? There will be numerous cases where people have used the literal definition of _NMR (ie as not married) to cover some of the situations highlighted by Stephen.
I think there should be a way to distinguish between 'partner' and 'not married' by either using different tags or by using a qualifying tag.
The question is whether the work required to achieve this is worth the effort?

[meliza]: I have some individuals for whom I use _NMR with a date. They were married at some point. Sources record them as not married at other times.
For couples the word 'partner' sounds much better.