Jump to content

Template talk:Same-sex unions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 121.218.40.222 (talk) at 13:13, 9 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Header legibility

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay and Victoria, Australia will have registered partnerships or civil unions by the commencement of Nov for Urugray and Dec 2007 for Australia, Victoria!!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Same-sex_unions&oldid=163318850"