This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Adding this comment cuz some anon claimed it violated CRYSTAL. These are all countries where there is serious (and demonstrable) consideration by the govt or courts. Some will probably move up in the chart to TBA (e.g. Panama), whereas others are more likely to go the way of civil unions (e.g. Philippines) or even dismissal (as happened w Nepal). None (except probably Mexico) are a sure thing. But they're all countries with ongoing legal/political developments that are worth being aware of and keeping track of. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Timeline? Definitely not a place for this. All this staff is included in national debates section. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I wanted something a little easier to scan than that. Maybe at the top of that section. It does fit in the timeline in the sense of being currently under debate. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
That's fine place. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
More editors who don't know what a "country" is
I see we're back to edits by people who don't know what a 'country' is, that somehow Denmark, the Faeroes and Greenland are countries, but that England, Wales and Scotland are not. One wants proof of what they could easily look up themself (the others don't comment at all), with threat of a block if this change to idiocy is not accepted. This was debated last year, and has been stable since. Do we really need to revisit it? — kwami (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Good points. Each should be judged on its own merits and laws, not its inclusion in the UK. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)