Jump to content

Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Template talk:Same-sex unions

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 7 June 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Merger proposal

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)

No way, they need to stay separate. Though they are similar, it is much better organized for the two of them to stay separate. Brainboy109 0:45 (UTC), 4 August 2007
The principle of this merge has already be run through Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies (See: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 8#"Same-sex marriage in ..." v. "Civil unions in the ..."). I have already begun merging "Same-sex marriage in ..." and "Civil unions in the ..." pages into "Recognition of gay unions in..." articles. The main point of the merge is that the articles deal with the same subject matter and that the difference between same-sex marriage and civil unions is rather fine. (Civil unions sometimes have all the rights associated with marriage, sometimes not). In the debate articles (i.e. countries where no gay-unions are recognised), there is absolutely no point in having two articles as debate will frequently take the form of whether they should have civil unions, gay marriage or something else. Caveat lector 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. To contract a civil union in Vermont, a couple must "be of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this state." 15 V.S.A. § 1202(2). I don't care about the merge-don't merge decision, which has presumably been made by now. _Rrius (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Against template merger. That the articles are incomplete, and POV in highlighting only same-sex perspective is not a good reason to merge the templates, which are about two different legal formalities that encompass two different potential populations. -- Yellowdesk 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merger. Although, this template merger is just one part of a bigger issue: "should the country-specific articles be merged"? To me, CU and SSM are just different legal solutions to a particular problem/issue. It is not possible to always determine which solution will be applied, so we should title the article on the issue, rather than the solution.
  • Comment I agree with ZueJay, "Gay Unions" isn't really accurate. I don't really care whether the templates and/or articles are merged or not, but if they do, the title really should be changed. The most accurate title would be "Gender-neutral unions". "Same-sex unions" would be next most accurate, but not all marriages are either same-sex or opposite-sex. Gender binary may be a popular concept, but it's not accurate. Also, to the best of my knowledge no country has actually legalized same-sex marriages or civil unions, they've made them gender-neutral. Just my pink $0.02 worth. If it is decided to merge them, I'm happy to help out if I have time. ☮ AussieDingo1983 (talk•my edits) 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the offer of help. The only reason it's "gay unions" is because it was intended that both the template and the set of pages it navigates would deal with the gay/same-sex side of things. It is true to say that many civil union are available to both sexes. But this is not always true. All these pages are meant to be topic pages, which can co-exist with other pages dealing with actual legal provisions. Entitling the page "Same-sex unions", would be fine. Caveat lector 16:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Okay to merge these into one template. It would simplify many articles and provide continuity between articles covering the same to similar topics; if an article were subsequently renamed due to a change in laws, etc., it would simplify changeover of templates - there would be none. Although there are two good points made above: 1) Civil unions and same-sex marriages are not necessarily the same set or subset of laws; 2) gender-neutral unions might be more correct than same-sex. I do have some issues still with the format/layout/aesthetics. I've played with it a bit in my sandbox. What do you all think? ZueJay (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Header legibility

Much improved, thanks.--Textorus 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do it

Let's do it now. It would really fit better if this procedure is completed.

Australia

Australia should be included in the civil unions/domestic partnership(s) as all state and territories provide this.

This isn't the impression I get from the Recognition of gay unions in Australia article. Recognition appears to range from almost none at all, to recognition of de-facto couples and to civil unions. More to the point, just providing links to a page on the state of "Victoria" (as opposed to creating a page on "Recognition of same-sex unions in Victoria" and pointing a link there is entirely pointless. This template is meant to be a navigation template, not an information table on same-sex unions worldwide. Adding Australia under the "In some regions heading" seems like a better idea. Caveat lector 10:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Readability

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)

Colours

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)

Guess I didn't quite communicate what I meant in the edit summary - had trouble fitting the text. The template, as it exists with the more bold colors, is not always the most attractive to those who are color blind according to the checks that can be performed (see Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color, the color checks for both templates can be run simultaneously if the link for my sandbox is used). The softer, pastel colors chosen by Morgan695 are fine for colorblindness, again according to the checks available. Because both versions seem okay with regards to color blindness, I believe the more bold colors are a better choice for this template. The more bold colors are reflective of two things: the colors of Gay pride (rainbow flag) and they indicate a sort-of "go", "caution" and "stop" pattern. For instance, where same-sex marriage is legal, green is used as the background for the section header; where civil unions, domestic partnerships and unregistered cohabitation lead to certain rights for same-sex couples, orange or yellow are used in a "caution" fashion; where recognition is debated, red is used as in "hold-up" and be aware. Does this help in understanding the current color scheme (more bold colors)? As long as the template is adequately accessible by the color blind, I don't think there is a particular policy regarding color choices in the WP:MOS. ZueJay (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

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 McKaytalk 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the footnotes were to stem any controversy over the initial placement of a particular location under a certain section header. I find they do not work great. As long as linked articles have proper references, I have no problem removing these. ZueJay (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should move the sources to the talk page, so if any controversy arises, users can access the sources there. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a navigation template, though. I understand some folks might like that convenience, but it seems unneccessary - the linked articles (should) have the references needed to address questions/doubts. ZueJay (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Iowa

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. ZueJay (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "stayed"? There has already been a gay marriage in Iowa [1]; was this not a valid marriage? When listening to NPR today, I got the impression same-sex marriage was legal in Iowa. Is this not the case? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Stayed" just means they put a hold on the court ruling such that no other non-heterosexual couples can apply and receive a marriage license at this time - at least that's my understanding. I would assume that, until the appeal is handled, the SSMs that have already taken place are valid - this has flavors of the same-sex marriages in San Francisco situation. Basically, it seems that things are in a state of limbo. The Iowa article might articulate this better. ZueJay (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Croatia

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)

Unregistered cohabitation

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:

  1. We only mark states recognising registered partnership, with those that recognise only unregistered cohabitation placed in the same category as those who recognise "No same sex unions". That is, the colour of Hungary, Croatia and Colombia should be changed.
  2. We place both registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation in the same category of "Same-sex unions", thus adding Brazil, all of Australia and Austria.
  3. We make a new category for unregistered cohabitation, like on this map.

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)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to increase chances of good feedback. ZueJay (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the world better or what?

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}.

Civil Unions and Registered Partnerships

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)

Because it overcomplicates the template. —Nightstallion 12:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Color bias

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)

Also, the red color of "recognition debated" doesn't quite do what you'd expect. Instead of listing countries that do not recognize same-sex relationships, it lists countries where either recognition at all or extending the existing legal recognition is debated (which leads to France being listed under orange and red, which would seem to be exclusive categories). Also, I just noticed that green-orange-yellow-red is not a particularly sensible order. :-) -- Lea (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and just changed the colors. :-) Hope you like it, and feel free to improve, of course! -- Lea (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Geez, you don't give people much time to register any objections, do you Lea? Your objections to the colors seem a bit petty and hair-splitting, in my view. I thought the old color scheme was just fine, very readable and colorful, making it easy for the eye to move from one section to another. The colors as you've changed them now make the infobox look like one long, dull undifferentiated list. But since I don't want to spend the time trying to learn how to change colors, I'll leave it as is. Just registering MHO.Textorus (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't actually waiting for objections, just being bold (and feel free to revert my changes if you absolutely hate them ^^). :-) I've changed the font size to match Template:LGBT sidebar, so the headings should be better visually distinguishable now. I do think that the colors now are better than the biased and illogical colors (see above) that were in before. That said, I'm not particularly good on color design (I simply used fairly light and neutral colors that don't distract), so if anyone wants to improve, go ahead. :-) (By the way, changing the colors is easy: Search for "background" in the edit field and edit the #rgb hex triplets.) -- Lea (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have thought it over, Lea, and I still can see no good reason to agree with your objection that the use of colors in this template reflects some sort of POV bias. Just seems way to heck over-scrupulous to me. Any color you care to name is bound to have some political/social/religious/ethnic associations somewhere, sometime; but I really don't think that means we need to paint the whole world drab blue and gray, as you did with this template. So I changed the colors back to what they were originally. Lighten up, will ya, and enjoy the whole spectrum. Color longa, vita brevis, to coin a phrase. :o) Textorus (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"Any color is bound to have some associations": Well, the green-to-red colors are obviously intended to transport a meaning here, aren't they? I'm not sure if I'm being over-scrupulous here — I do prefer strict NPOV over (perceived) prettiness, but I'll leave the colors for now unless I get someone else agreeing with me. -- Lea (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it would function like a traffic light- they have the green light to have relationships in some and don't in others. The template without them is *ugly*. --83.147.169.24 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

California

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)

To quote from this [2] LA Times article, "Paul Drugan, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, said the county was not immediately granting same-sex marriage licenses, noting that the court's decision would take effect in 30 days." NoIdeaNick (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the page again, but it would be nice if someone would leave a note here instead of simply reverting the page without notice. NoIdeaNick (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think adding "eff. June 2008" after "CA" would work? Merqurial (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Something like that ought to work, although I would suggest having a subheading along the lines of "To be recognized in some regions" and then putting United States (CA) in that category. NoIdeaNick (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I kept it in the category with an effective date as with the other recently passed measures in other countries. (Дҭї) 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates in the template

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)

I agree with yyyy-mm-dd. —Nightstallion 10:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
We should just put Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec for any month. That way it's very evident what it is.
Blindman shady 05:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, no formant is right or wrong, each country has it's official formats. i like : Jan-1-2008 foramts, that works the best for all. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I just tried 1 Jan 2008 for Hungary. The test shows that in the two-column portions of the template, the date will break before the year. The format in use now has the virtues of being short (it could only be shorter if the "20" were left off), not breaking in the middle of the date, and being understandable regardless of what country one is from. The proposed format only has the last of these. -Rrius (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_1&oldid=1091981079"