![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I propose that the templates {{ SSM}} and {{ Civil union}} redirect to this one. I created this template in order to provide a single navigation template for the merged "Same-sex marriage in ..." and "Civil unions in ..." articles which I am currently in the process of merging. (I could do with some help doing this if someone wants to give me a hand!) Caveat lector 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's do it now. It would really fit better if this procedure is completed.
Australia should be included in the civil unions/domestic partnership(s) as all state and territories provide this.
I realise that many of the places listed on the template have recognition which isn't in force yet, I don't think indicating the date is that useful for a navigation template. I'll replace them with an asterix and write (* legislation not yet in force) in small print at the bottom of the template. Caveat lector 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I felt the current colours of the template were too jarring, so I re-did it with colours from Wikipedia:Colours. But if my rendition of it looks bad under the colourblindness test, then I guess the current version is fine. Morgan695 05:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There are two footnotes on Iowa and New York. Why are there only footnotes on these two places, but not any other places? I think we should remove the footnotes; especially since articles with no references section, such as Same-sex marriage in the United States, can't even view the footnotes. — Christopher Mann McKay talk 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Because the Iowa ruling is currently "stayed", this particular location should not be listed as having SSMs. I consider this template to indicate "currently legal" locations. Am going to be WP:BOLD, please discuss it. Zue Jay ( talk) 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is Croatia listed as having SSM? 129.2.170.59 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake I have corrected it to a "registered partnership" thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.136.173 ( talk) 06:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to raise this, but I have an issue to clarify with this map, which shows worldwide recognition of same-sex unions. The map draws no distinction between civil unions/registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation. In itself, this is not a problem; however, some countries which only offer unregistered cohabitation are marked as offering "same-sex unions", while others, which offer the same rights, are marked as "No same-sex unions". More specifically, Colombia, Hungary and Croatia are placed in the same category as the UK, Sweden, etc. But, all the states of Australia, Brazil and Austria also recognise de-facto same-sex couples and offer them some rights. There are three possible solutions:
Personally, I believe that Option 3 would be the best, but it may also clutter the map up too much. Option 2 is the worst in my opinion, since we would placing countries with very limited recognition like Austria, alongside countries with marriage-equivalent rights and registration processes, like the UK. Ronline ✉ 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the world better or what? Why? I will tell you. SSMs, Civil unions/partnership, unregitered cohabition, registred partnerships, domestic partnerships, etc - Might soon well be legal (I can asure you) by 2010 in; Australia (Commonwealth law only; all states and territories have some sort of recognition), Austria (unregitered cohabition to registered partnership), Hungary (unregitered cohabition to registered partnership), Ireland, Italy, Victoria (unregitered cohabition to registered partnership), Oregeon {USA}, New Hampshire {USA}.
Why are so many things lumped together under this title? Moreover, why are they all called civil unions in the "civil unions legal, same-sex marriage debated" section?
In Vermont, a civil union is like a marriage but limited to people of the same sex. They are contracted and dissolved in essentially the same way, and civil unions are prohibited within the same degrees of family relationship as are marriages. Parties to a civil union have the benefits, responsibilities, and immunities as married couples. In Hawaii, reciprocal beneficiaries are entitled to some benefits, but may be between relatives and bear few indicia of marriage. Domestic partnerships are generally limited in scope and bear little resemblance to marriage.
Why not separate the relationships, like Vermont's civil unions, that are an alternative form of marriage (a marriage in all but name) from the relationships, like Hawaii's and California's, that are much looser associations and require fewer formalities to enter and exit? - Rrius ( talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that using green-orange-yellow-red is showing some bias in favor of legal recognition of same-sex relationships, in that green to red oftentimes not only stands for "yes" to "no" but also for "good" to "bad". In the interest of being unbiased, I'd like to remove the colors. Any objections? -- Lea ( talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The California Supreme Court ruling does not go into effect for 30 days. Thus, same-sex marriage is still unrecognized in California. NoIdeaNick ( talk) 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there are (I think) four dates on the template. Yesterday, one of them is in m/d/yyyy format, and the others are in d/m/yyyy format (I assume Hungary was d/m, but since it is Jan 1, I'm only guessing). Today, they are all in m/d/yyyy format. In this particular instance, there is unlikely to be anything more than momentary confusion. That will not always be the case. Whether we use m/d or d/m, confusion is bound to occur when the day is less than 13. I am therefore going to change the format to non-linked yyyy-m-d. Further, I am looking for a consensus on what format should be used in future to avoid confusion (whether yyyy-m-d or otherwise). - Rrius ( talk) 04:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I propose that the templates {{ SSM}} and {{ Civil union}} redirect to this one. I created this template in order to provide a single navigation template for the merged "Same-sex marriage in ..." and "Civil unions in ..." articles which I am currently in the process of merging. (I could do with some help doing this if someone wants to give me a hand!) Caveat lector 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's do it now. It would really fit better if this procedure is completed.
Australia should be included in the civil unions/domestic partnership(s) as all state and territories provide this.
I realise that many of the places listed on the template have recognition which isn't in force yet, I don't think indicating the date is that useful for a navigation template. I'll replace them with an asterix and write (* legislation not yet in force) in small print at the bottom of the template. Caveat lector 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I felt the current colours of the template were too jarring, so I re-did it with colours from Wikipedia:Colours. But if my rendition of it looks bad under the colourblindness test, then I guess the current version is fine. Morgan695 05:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There are two footnotes on Iowa and New York. Why are there only footnotes on these two places, but not any other places? I think we should remove the footnotes; especially since articles with no references section, such as Same-sex marriage in the United States, can't even view the footnotes. — Christopher Mann McKay talk 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Because the Iowa ruling is currently "stayed", this particular location should not be listed as having SSMs. I consider this template to indicate "currently legal" locations. Am going to be WP:BOLD, please discuss it. Zue Jay ( talk) 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is Croatia listed as having SSM? 129.2.170.59 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake I have corrected it to a "registered partnership" thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.136.173 ( talk) 06:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to raise this, but I have an issue to clarify with this map, which shows worldwide recognition of same-sex unions. The map draws no distinction between civil unions/registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation. In itself, this is not a problem; however, some countries which only offer unregistered cohabitation are marked as offering "same-sex unions", while others, which offer the same rights, are marked as "No same-sex unions". More specifically, Colombia, Hungary and Croatia are placed in the same category as the UK, Sweden, etc. But, all the states of Australia, Brazil and Austria also recognise de-facto same-sex couples and offer them some rights. There are three possible solutions:
Personally, I believe that Option 3 would be the best, but it may also clutter the map up too much. Option 2 is the worst in my opinion, since we would placing countries with very limited recognition like Austria, alongside countries with marriage-equivalent rights and registration processes, like the UK. Ronline ✉ 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the world better or what? Why? I will tell you. SSMs, Civil unions/partnership, unregitered cohabition, registred partnerships, domestic partnerships, etc - Might soon well be legal (I can asure you) by 2010 in; Australia (Commonwealth law only; all states and territories have some sort of recognition), Austria (unregitered cohabition to registered partnership), Hungary (unregitered cohabition to registered partnership), Ireland, Italy, Victoria (unregitered cohabition to registered partnership), Oregeon {USA}, New Hampshire {USA}.
Why are so many things lumped together under this title? Moreover, why are they all called civil unions in the "civil unions legal, same-sex marriage debated" section?
In Vermont, a civil union is like a marriage but limited to people of the same sex. They are contracted and dissolved in essentially the same way, and civil unions are prohibited within the same degrees of family relationship as are marriages. Parties to a civil union have the benefits, responsibilities, and immunities as married couples. In Hawaii, reciprocal beneficiaries are entitled to some benefits, but may be between relatives and bear few indicia of marriage. Domestic partnerships are generally limited in scope and bear little resemblance to marriage.
Why not separate the relationships, like Vermont's civil unions, that are an alternative form of marriage (a marriage in all but name) from the relationships, like Hawaii's and California's, that are much looser associations and require fewer formalities to enter and exit? - Rrius ( talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that using green-orange-yellow-red is showing some bias in favor of legal recognition of same-sex relationships, in that green to red oftentimes not only stands for "yes" to "no" but also for "good" to "bad". In the interest of being unbiased, I'd like to remove the colors. Any objections? -- Lea ( talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The California Supreme Court ruling does not go into effect for 30 days. Thus, same-sex marriage is still unrecognized in California. NoIdeaNick ( talk) 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there are (I think) four dates on the template. Yesterday, one of them is in m/d/yyyy format, and the others are in d/m/yyyy format (I assume Hungary was d/m, but since it is Jan 1, I'm only guessing). Today, they are all in m/d/yyyy format. In this particular instance, there is unlikely to be anything more than momentary confusion. That will not always be the case. Whether we use m/d or d/m, confusion is bound to occur when the day is less than 13. I am therefore going to change the format to non-linked yyyy-m-d. Further, I am looking for a consensus on what format should be used in future to avoid confusion (whether yyyy-m-d or otherwise). - Rrius ( talk) 04:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)