Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Idaho

The situation is a bit vague (and certainly in flux) in the US at the moment. For me that's a reason to use the precautionary principle that was used in the past years on this template: until we know for sure it is legal or will be legal (in the sense of: actually practised), we shouldn't add; and I therefore have removed Idaho. It seems fully plausible that they will be (forced to) start issuing marriage licenses next week, but we simply don't know, so we shouldn't state we do (even with an asterisk saying it will happen later...). L.tak (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

But in the case of Idaho, the SCOTUS has effectively rejected the appeal making it clear that this WILL happen, it is just a matter of following procedure. That would seem to mean that we should indicate it with an asterisk. 50.167.191.11 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that is the case. This is very similar to the situation where a bill is approved, and the King still has to sign it. This signature that converts the act into law is often considered a symbolic action, but still, we wait for it to be completed (who knows what will happen?). So unless we have sources saying it is 100% sure this will happen and there is no discretion possible from the side of the circuit court, I prefer to leave out, so we leave the template for the clear cases. In the case of other countries (Brazil etc) we followed that route as well... link provides the "after scotus" situation and shows there is still (some) room for legal manoeuvring.. L.tak (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's over in Idaho, they've actually issued licenses (confirmed by a huge number of reliable sources), no more asterisk. This *also* means we can get rid of the protection, because that was the cause. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

Remove the star from Idaho. It's no longer not in effect. :) 8.12.99.4 (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)  Not done Duplicate of more detailed request below. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

Idaho should no longer have an asterisk by it and should be removed from the 'previously performed but invalidated' section. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this request. Difbobatl (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this request as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done There is already an open edit request on Idaho above, and edit warring about Idaho was the cause of the protection. Please see the active discussion above. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it was not due to edit warring. Edit warring is when users intentionally engage in conflict by constantly reverting each other's changes. Edit warring is not when different people unintentionally make the same change due to lack of information and those changes get reverted. Tinmanic (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Xaosflux, please fulfill the edit request above. We are all trying to make this obvious, factual change and redrose won't allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, there is no edit war. Everyone agrees the change should be made, except for admins it seems. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Alaska should (in my view) be removed. The 9th Circuit court has issued a temporary stay preventing the state from enforcing the pro-gay marriage ruling in the Alaska District Court. So long as the stay is in effect, Alaska's anti gay marriage law is technically still valid. Stay is in effect until 12pm on 17 October, unless SCOTUS decides otherwise. See here: [1] Jono52795 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Asterisk is better solution. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There were atleast 15 reverts on Idaho alone. There was an edit war going on. There clearly wasn't consensus during the war and there isn't consensus now. I'd like to thank Jono52795 and Tinmanic for their thought out responses instead of the usual emotional ones on this page. Could Prcc twenty-seven and L.tak chime in as they were for the asterisk on Idaho. L.tak's previous comments for the asterisk from five days ago are here. Per protocol, template stays as is until consensus is reached. There are two different proposals, one for Idaho and one for Alaska. Please make sure you separate your comments, one for each state. Please keep calm. The judicial process in the U.S. has taken years on this subject and it will not be settled overnight here either. Bgwhite (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is consensus, at least on the Idaho asterisk. Comments from 5 days ago are irrelevant. 5 days ago is an eternity given the subject matter that we are talking about. Reality has changed and you are stuck in the past. This is exactly why this template should not be protected, because it needs to be updated regularly and swiftly, and admins are apparently too stuck on bureaucracy to fix it in a timely manner. An edit war would be preferable to this. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing Idaho's asterisk, oppose removing Alaska, and support adding an asterisk to Alaska. Prcc27 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Same-sex marriages are now taking place in Idaho: http://news.yahoo.com/alaskas-1st-known-gay-marriage-arctic-town-080749479.html Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing Idaho's asterisk. Prcc27 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Hi. Same-sex marriage is now in effect in Idaho. Please would you edit the template accordingly. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC) RomanSpa (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing Idaho's asterisk. Prcc27 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Please remove Idaho from the previously performed section. Same-sex marriage is currently performed there.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Prcc27 (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

Idaho marriages are now set to begin again today (Wednesday 10-15-2014) per 9th circuit order. See Same-sex marriage in Idaho page. I already changed the global map. Following up on others as well. Thanks! Chase1493 (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support this edit. Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove asterisk from Idaho. It's past 10 am MDT; marriage is now legal there. Tinmanic (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support this edit. Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ID needs to loose the * and be removed from the list of states where marriages occurred before they were legal, since same-sex marriage is now actively legal in Idaho. Difbobatl (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Difbobatl (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In the United States section, Idaho hasn't been updated as yet. The asterisk is no longer an asterisk. Thanks.

Randy Kryn (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support this edit. Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage licenses are now being issued in Idaho, so the asterisk next to the "ID" under "United States" should be removed. Skbl17 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Skbl17 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And a source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765661222/Idaho-begins-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses.html

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support this edit. Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: How can we be sure that it won't change again? The way things have been recently, it could cease again any time now. Also, don't request the same edit five times. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64, you state "it could cease again any time now." Please provide evidence for this claim. The Ninth Circuit dissolved its stay, the U.S. Supreme Court dissolved its stay, the Ninth Circuit turned down Governor Otter's request for an additional stay, Governor Otter has said he is giving up for now, and most importantly, marriages in Idaho are happening. The asterisk is for states where same-sex marriage is not yet in effect. It is in effect in Idaho. The asterisk should be removed. Please tell me whom your decision can be appealed to. Tinmanic (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems a bit disingenuous. We do seem to have a consensus, as well as pictures of actual weddings. You could make the argument that any ruling anywhere in our judicial system could be changed any time now... Please make the change to reflect reality! Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If it changes, then we change the template to match. That's the entire point of having a wiki. Redrose, if you're not competent to handle this template, please hand it off to someone who is. 207.192.243.66 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How does one appeal the decisions of a moderator on a power trip? DB (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be happy to file an RfC appealing the excessive protection time (one week) and the refusal to make a necessary template edit. Tinmanic (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing the asterisk from Idaho. It should be removed immediately. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64: The stay was dissolved by the Ninth Court of Appeals, meaning the only court that could theoretically stop Idaho marriages is the Supreme Court, which has already denied Idaho's emergency stay request last week. There is no feasible way Idaho would be stopped, and the asterisk is now inappropriate. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64: The asterisk on ID and listing at the bottom of the template contradicts the article on same-sex marriage in the US (including the other graphics linked at that page) and the article on same-sex marriage in Idaho. Refusing this edit request leads to inconsistency! Difbobatl (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have filed an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Redrose64. It requires endorsement from at least one other user at that link. Tinmanic (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It should not require a formal RfC to get the asterisk removed from the template. Redrose64 is abusing his authority as an admin by not allowing a clear consensus to be implemented immediately on a time-sensitive matter such as this. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I too support a removal of the asterisk for all the aforementioned reasons. It would factually incorrect to not do so. Redrose64 speculation should never replace hard fact on Wikipedia. Make the change. Jono52795 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the asterisk from Idaho in the template. Leaving it in is factually incorrect as of this time. Claiming "it might change again at any time" applies to all of Wikipedia's articles dealing with current events. Kumorifox (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I add my voice to those supporting this change. The current status is factually incorrect. If we bar from Wikipedia things that may not be true in the future, we remove just about everything written in the present tense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also pretty clearly a WP:Crystal violation. An admin should know better. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, even the Spanish Wikipedia has this corrected: [2] Difbobatl (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this edit. The admin acting here is clearly inept. Considering they don't have a damn clue about about US same-sex marriage laws, they should not be protecting this template. Their refusal to listen to consensus is clearly abuse of power. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There are over 1,000 admins. You'd think we could find at least one that had some common sense who is willing to change the template in the face of overwhelming consensus to do so. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing Idaho's asterisk and support adding an asterisk to Alaska ([3]). Prcc27 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. There is broad support for this change, the consensus is quite apparent. I've gone ahead and made the requested change. Shereth 05:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Shereth: Where did you make the request..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27:I did not make the request, I completed the request. Shereth 06:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Shereth: Oh okay, Thanks!
    • @Shereth: Hey, could you also remove Idaho from the previously performed..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure, that's logical. Shereth 07:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2014

Why is this template protected? Alaska needs to be added. Tinmanic (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I protected it because people kept adding and removing Idaho and some other states. Before any other states like Alaska are added, we need to be sure that somebody won't then remove it again. Accordingly, please at the very least demonstrate that adding Alaska is the correct thing to do. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You protected it because people kept adding and removing Idaho; why does such a circumstance require protection? Does it use up bandwidth or something? Seems unwarranted to me. Tinmanic (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the confusion over Idaho has been resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Idaho_2 Tinmanic (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the template's protection. People kept removing Idaho and I had to re-add it. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the administrator's decision to protect the template. A fast-changing subject like SSM should allow for wikipediens to alter a template, so long as the link that is added is relevant and appropriately sourced. However, with the template protected, I urge the administrator to promptly update it so as to include Alaska. An injunction has been issued by a federal judge and though the state plans to appeal, as of now there is no legal impediment (aside from the usual 3 day waiting period) to obtaining a marriage license for a same-sex couple in the state. I strongly urge an update. Here are the sources justifying an update: See here + and here Jono52795 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and here's the District Court judge's ruling, immediately enjoining the state from enforcing the ban (see page 25): See here. Any reason now why Alaska shouldn't be added? Jono52795 (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not to do with bandwidth (although in a recent case, several edits to one template in a short timespan did cause server outages), the point is that repeatedly adding and removing content is disruptive. As noted by Xaosflux (below), it's a temporary protection: here is the log, from which you will see not only that the prot will expire 21:17, 19 October 2014, but that it has been temporarily protected on several previous occasions, normally for the same reason: Edit warring / content dispute. WP:BRD applies to templates just as it does to articles (more so for templates that are used on more than a handful of articles); this template has inclusion criteria that encourages discussion with sources. Anyway, from the comments above and below, adding Alaska appears to be a constructive action, so Done; but a very good reason will be required to remove it again. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your promptness. Regardless of weather or not the template stays protected beyond 19 October (I oppose such a move FWIW), I just want to advise administrators this is a constantly evolving field, with many states likely to have SSM bans struck down soon, not to mention the possibility of future stays being implemented by SCOTUS or a conservative 5th or 6th circuit ruling. Hopefully within a few months things settle down and there will be no need for this inevitable 'edit warring' that occurs when states rapidly shift from legalised SSM to stayed SSM pending appeal. Regardless, thanks for listening and responding to my arguments. Jono52795 (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska

Same-sex marriage is legal in Alaska. [4] Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Marriages were performed in Alaska and they have not yet been invalidated. Could we please get AK added to the list at the end of the template? Apparently we have to have a multi-day discussion about everything now before simple changes can be made... [5] Difbobatl (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

Please add Alaska to the list of states which allow same sex marriage Same-sex marriage in Alaska[AK] 107.2.70.190 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support this edit. Prcc27 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• I too support this edit and believe it should be done expeditiously. Jono52795 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears this template has been temporarily protected due to edit warring, a VERY QUICK search seems like this state may still be contentious as well? CNN reports that "Alaska could soon legalize" this union. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't contentious at all. This is the order, copied verbatim from the District Court's ruling, pg 25: The Court IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS the state of Alaska, including state officers, personnel, agents, government divisions, and other political entities, from enforcing Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 25 and Alaska Statute Sections 25.05.011 and 25.05.013 to the extent that the laws prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marriage and refusing to recognize lawful same-sex marriages entered in other states. IT IS SO ORDERED. Source. Though the state has announced plans to appeal, there is no stay granted in the district judge's ruling, nor is there likely to be one granted from the 9th circuit or SCOTUS. Thus why I say, as of now, there is no legal impediment to SSM in Alaska. It should be added to the template in my view. Jono52795 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

24.34.200.133 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Alaska has officially legalized same-sex marriage.

 Not done duplicate of above request. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Alaska should be added to previously performed: [6] Prcc27 (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this request. It is a fact that marriages were performed in Alaska when it was legal. Difbobatl (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Prcc27 (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming

Why are we adding this? Are we really 100% sure that it will come into effect and not some legal avenue will be found (or sought) that will lead to further litigation? I would like to avoid that we state the prediction that it will be legal (which is Crtystal balling) instead of the knowledge this will happen as only a pure technicality has to be performed.... L.tak (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ignoring the fact that the governor said they won't appeal.. temporary stays are treated as "legalization not yet in effect" on the U.S. same-sex marriage map. In order to be consistent, we must do the same thing here. It doesn't mean that same-sex marriage will be legal in Wyoming (even though it probably will); it just means that same-sex marriage was "legalized" and set to take effect. Prcc27 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for replying here. Well, what happens on other pages we have no control over, but here we have to deal with an international template, that must be applied in a consistent manner, otherwise the reverts will be all over the place in the next country... The consistent way to do this was always e.g. to wait until the president etc had signed a law, or until the governor had signed it, even if he had indicated that would be a formality only. Who knows what will happen? Maybe he can be forced to appeal? Or citizens can appeal on his behalf? Or he is pressured? I have no idea? But legal procedures have not finished and come to a definite conclusion, so I oppose adding i. L.tak (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @L.tak:The U.S. same-sex marriage map appears on several Wikipedia articles in many different languages. It also appears on the same articles this template does. We can not having conflicting information, especially on the same article. Also, even when same-sex marriage is legal and same-sex marriages begin, in some cases- the case is still being appealed and there hasn't been a "definite conclusion" yet. Whatever we do, we must be consistent on all templates that deal with same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree that consistency is valuable, but the main point here is internal consistency and adhering to the wikipedia policies and the policies of this template; and to be sure we have a thorough basis for information; I am not sure if we could suggest single country templates to follow this template, but that is not always successful (as was the case with the south America template). But on to the factual matter: if "the case is still being appealed and there hasn't been a "definite conclusion" yet", as you say, then why should we mention it on this template stating "not yet in effect" (which is meant for: 100% sure to be effective, but just not yet). That's against the ideas stated on the left side of the template page; and it would also be crystal balling and/or original research. Again, I appreciate the bold move of adding it by whover that was, but I have until now seen no good factual reasons, nor consensus for its inclusion... L.tak (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm a bit lost with these three new states.
  
  • • Arizona = no stay, Attorney won't appeal, but what for Governor who found the decision "disappointing"? = SSM legal for the moment?
      
    • Alaska = stay denied by SCOTUS, Governor will appeal (am I right?) = SSM legal until the appeal is made?
      
    • Wyoming = stay, Governor won't appeal, but what for Attorney? = SSM not legal until the stay ends (~20 October)?
      
    • Thank you for your help. Titanicophile (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanicophile (talk • contribs)
      • @Titanicophile: Same-sex marriage is legal in Arizona and the governor won't appeal (even though they want to) because it would be a waste of time and money (basically, they know they won't win).
      • The governor of Alaska tried to appeal the decision, but since SCOTUS denied it- same-sex marriage is legal there.
      • Wyoming is stayed until October 23 or until the defendants tell the court they won't appeal the decision. The governor announced that they won't appeal. Prcc27 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much @Prcc27:, that's kind! Titanicophile (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think a state should be added until there is a definite ruling. Not just the governor and/or AG saying there will be no appeal, as switches in stance have been made before. I know the 10th ruling is supposed to affect Wyoming (as well as Kansas) but these states were being difficult, and a mere mention that there will be no appeal isn't exactly saying it will happen.
  Otherwise, we might simply add all of the US at once, since it is pretty much inevitable that marriage equality will occur all over anyway. Kumorifox (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Kumorifox: You are misunderstanding, Wyoming's ban was struck down and the stay expires very soon. Wyoming not appealing has nothing to do with anything.. Prcc27 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• I have reverted the addition of Wyoming, as there seems to be no consensus yet for its inclusion. That may change of course, but please do not add before consensus is clearly established in the case.... L.tak (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @L.talk: There is consensus for Wyoming because many other states in the same situation were added as "not yet in effect." Prcc27 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • A revert again... Could you demonstrate this consensus? I didn't see it and it is also not in the template text left of the template (only in the case of a denial of a stay be SCOTUS it is said there)? What happened in the last week was heavily disputed and edit warred and can not be considered proper consensus building. It is extremely hard not to get into an edit war with you I must say, when you do not agree to go back to an old situation while resolving a dispute. I am happy that you are now engaging on the talk page instead of ignoring (like with my ohio edit+talk page discussion), but reverting is not the solution. L.tak (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @L.tak: Since you reverted first, I reverted the template back to the statusquo per WP:STATUSQUO until you get consensus to remove Wyoming. Adding a state with a temporary stay is consensus because that's what's been practiced for a while. I feel that if we are going to do away with Wyoming on this template then the same must be done for the U.S. ssm map. This should be discussed in conjunction with the U.S. map. Prcc27 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I reverted the bold addition of Wyoming (that was 1); and you ververted my revert (2); and we disagree what was the status quo... Again and again, could you point me to the consensus you are referring to? I am not seeing it? So I am going with the template text (left of the template on the main page). The discussion in conjunction with the US map: that would be helpful, but this is an international template, and we cannot accommodate country specific interpretations of policy, as internal consistency is much more important... could you please also indicate to me why you think this is not crystal balling? as Kumorifox and I have pointed out? L.tak (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Kentucky, Virginia, and many other states were added when there was a temporary stay. There is consensus for Wyoming per WP:EDITCONSENSUS (common practice). On the U.S. map it was argued that it violates WP:CRYSTAL to assume that something will happen to prevent the ruling from going into effect when it is set to expire. Prcc27 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Was this from the past 14 days and the ensuing edit wars? Or was it longer? L.tak (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Adding temporary stays has been the consensus way before the edit wars. Prcc27 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
            • I'll wait and get some more input from other people here, so we can see where we stand. I think your and my points are clear; but they unfortunately have not come closer together in this discussion.... L.tak (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Prcc27: "Wyoming's ban was struck down and the stay expires very soon." Thank you, that's what I needed to know. In cases like that, where the ban really was struck and stayed only temporarily, I think the relevant state should be added to the template to reflect current events. I was unaware that the Wyoming ban was completely struck, not only by precedent, but also at state level, hence my confusion. Therefore, I support the addition of Wyoming to the template as it reflects current events; it can always be changed later if other developments arise, but such developments cannot be predicted and so should not be anticipated in the template by omission of the state. Kumorifox (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I support leaving WY with the asterisk until the stay is lifted. Difbobatl (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@L.tak: I saw you changed the template criteria to say, "also stays of orders of a court of appeal have been considered a reason for inclusion." I'm not sure what you mean there. Wyoming is included because of a trial court decision that conforms with appeals court precedent. There was no order from a court of appeal, there was no stay of an order of a court of appeal, and Wyoming is included not because of the stay, but despite the stay -- because it's only a temporary stay with a definite end date. Tinmanic (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet in effect (revisited)

Adding anything "Not yet in effect" violates WP:CRYSTAL and should not be added to the template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could we please have a discussion about this first? The template has worked this way quite some time. Difbobatl (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus I can see anywhere on this page to add speculation in direct violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We can absolutely discuss it, and I'm guessing that it will require an RFC to acquire outside input before there is a resolution (since you appear to think that this template should be exempt from a policy that applies to all other pages/templates, it's scope is larger than the contributors of this talk page). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe not name it as "not yet in effect" but as something different? For example, Luxembourg has signed the law, meaning the country is on course to have marriage accessible in 2015, but it has to go through the waiting period (for want of a better term). I believe such pending accessibility should be highlighted in the template. Maybe not in the main body, but as a footnote or at the end of the list instead? As for Alaska, I support temporary removal and including the state in the "previously performed" section instead. There is no direct law there as of yet (at least, not as far as I am aware), and the current stay means marriages are not performed there right now, so putting it in the main body of the template is incorrect, in my eyes.
      Addendum: or create a separate section, like we have marriage, recognition, and previously performed but not invalidated. Maybe call it something like "Approved by law, not yet in effect" instead? Kumorifox (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • "Not yet in effect" just means that the law was passed but goes into effect on such and such date. It means that licenses aren't being issued but they are scheduled to be issued sometime in the future. The same wording is used for Template:Samesex marriage in USA map Prcc27 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I see your point, but only for places like Luxembourg and Scotland, where the laws are signed and are to go into effect, but there has not been marriage legality before. Places like Alaska should then be (re)moved and no longer marked with an asterisk, as those laws or rulings were in effect, then halted, and they are in limbo, and not "not yet in effect". Would that be more acceptable? Kumorifox (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Alaska was in effect- but they are also not yet in effect because it's currently illegal but soon to be legal. Prcc27 (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Technical 13: I am absolutely certain this has been discussed before (there are many archives of this talk page). If you are of the opinion that it violates WP:CRYSTAL, let's please discuss that and do not assume that your opinion is the only right one. We are not asking this template to be exempt from a policy for the simple reason that we are of the opinion that the policy does not apply here. So please prove your point; what exactly is speculation about a law which merely takes effect on a later date? Imho it is clearly not speculation since the law WILL take effect on the date mentioned in the law (and as reported in many verifiable sources). If you read the first point on WP:CRYSTAL, it should be very obvious it is included under "almost certain to take place". Otherwise all future elections would also be "speculation". To be clear, I am talking about Luxembourg, Scotland, etc; I am not going to bother about the U.S. situation since that is developing quickly. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed. It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say that the law exists but is not yet in force, when it has been enacted and the date of commencement has been officially pronounced, as in the case of Luxembourg or Scotland. (One might argue that it is CRYSTALish to imply that the law may not come into force, since that can't happen without a repealing law.) I make no comment about the American "is it stayed or isn't it" situations, where the outcome is not determined. - htonl (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I tried to remove the redundant "not yet in effect" but accidentally messed up the format. Could someone help me..? Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Already done. - htonl (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Technical 13: You seem to have made numerous edits to this template today that go against the longstanding consensus. This consensus is shown, at the very least, by the fact that editors have long followed the practice that the template should include jurisdictions where laws have been passed or non-stayed court decisions have been issued. If you'd like to attempt to form a new consensus before making further changes to the template, you are of course free to do so. Tinmanic (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The template claimed (until I recently fixed it), that all of the places listed legally recognized SSM. This was blatantly false in the cases I was removing. If it is not yet in effect, then it is not legally recognized and claiming it is constitutes a direct violation of WP:FUTURE. The long standing consensus by the community (the local consensus on this template does not supersede this community consensus) is that violations of WP:FUTURE be reverted. Insistence on reinstating the lies that where in the template despite being told they are against global consensus constitutes vandalism. I'm tempted to request indef full page protection for vandalism until a full fledged RFC can be completed (lasting 30 days) and grant the template exclusion from being required to be accurate and not full of speculation. Let's please not take it to this level. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree that the "Not yet in effect" wording should go, it adds nothing but false hope to people who watch these type of things and also is a violation of our policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Knowledgekid87: So what do you propose we do about the transition color on Template:Samesex marriage in USA map? "Same-sex marriage legalization pending, but not yet in effect". We have to be consistent, if we remove "not yet in effect" from this template, then we are going to have to change something about the transition color on the US same-sex marriage map. Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • It has to be changed then, Technical brings up some valid points the wording "Not yet in effect" can imply that SSM is legally recognized. I wouldn't be opposed to an RfC here as you pointed out this will effect the map. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Technical 13: A few things:
      • (1) You state: "The template claimed (until I recently fixed it), that all of the places listed legally recognized SSM." Actually, the template makes very clear that jurisdictions with an asterisk are places where same-sex marriage has been legalized but the law is not yet in effect. Therefore, the template doesn't claim that all of the places listed legally recognize same-sex marriage.
      • (2) You state: "If it is not yet in effect, it is not legally recognized and claiming it is constitutes a direct violation of WP:FUTURE." Actually, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable." Laws and court decisions about same-sex marriage are clearly verifiable by reliable sources and therefore don't violate WP:FUTURE. Therefore, the consensus for this template remains the governing consensus.
      • (3) You state: "Insistence on reinstating the lies that where in the template despite being told they are against global consensus constitutes vandalism" (my emphasis). One, "lies" is not the appropriate word for something that is (a) clearly marked in the template as "not yet in effect," (b) does not deceive, and (c) does not intend to deceive. Two, "vandalism" is not the appropriate word here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism states that vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It also states, "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
    • Knowledgekid87: How is it the case that "the wording 'Not yet in effect' can imply that SSM is legally recognized"? Seems to me the exact opposite is true. Given that there is a consensus that the map and the template are OK and that WP:FUTURE is not being violated, does your opinion change? Tinmanic (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Like I stated here, how can someone ask for protection of a template so then edits can only be made when there's clear consensus when they're editing without clear consensus themselves? "Not yet in effect" implies that same-sex marriage is not legal, but will be sometime in the future. Prcc27 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Which is the exact opposite of the title of the template "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships". Are they legal or aren't they, you can not have both without making Wikipedia look like a joke. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
          • It is legal in the sense that same-sex relationships are recognised by law, that they are "enshrined" into law, but the provisions of the law merely take practical effect on a future date. When the consensus is that this situation warrants a mention in the template, then this does not mean we are making Wikipedia look like a joke. I seriously dislike your tone; we were trying to have a normal discussion here, and you simply tried to impose your opinion. SPQRobin (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Technical 13 removed the title from the template. There is no consensus for such a drastic edit, so I have reverted it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, that's why Knowledgekid87 said "'Not yet in effect' can imply that SSM is legally recognized".. After all, the title of this template is "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships"- so it doesn't make much sense to list jurisdictions that don't recognize same-sex relationships yet. Maybe it's not the "not yet in effect" that's the problem- but rather the title. What if we changed it to "Legal status of same-sex relationships"..? To clarify, I'm not suggesting we remove "not yet in effect" jurisdictions; instead, I'm suggesting that we change the title so then it's more inclusive towards such jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. The "not yet in effect" was here for a long time; and before: after a law as passed (including being signed by the governor etc) it would be listed anyway (without the "*" even!), so there is a long (years) standing consensus to have "not yet in effect" when the law is passed and there is no way (no stays etc) that can be used. I do agree however talk page use has been minimal until the use of the full protection. I explained a revert last week, and was only answered y by an IP, while edits on the very subject went on (but this type of behaviour also happened when Brazil things changed, so it will calm down after the US things have settled down a bit).... L.tak (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

    @L.tak: The template has not been full-protected since the prot imposed 20:02, 8 January 2012 expired 20:02, 11 January 2012. The prot log is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

    • you're right... didn't realize it was a template-editor only protection; but that was what I meant... L.tak (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing Clutter

I do not see any reason why we are listing the states that allow marriage state by state in the infobox rather than linking to the information already provided here: Same-sex marriage in the United States#States that license same-sex marriage. There are no states on the table that marriages are not yet in effect in and the SSM by state can be linked through the table as well, we already have a footer template with the information. Having all this info about the United States in the infobox also adds WP:UNDUE weight as a visual distraction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are states with marriage not yet in effect, and it's important to list all the states because it links to their articles. This is already being discussed in one of the sections above. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: You are missing the point the states are clutter and weigh on the template WP:UNDUE the whole world isn't America you know. Which states are without marriage on the table? Under "Date effective" I see no states that aren't yet in effect. I count 24 states that currently have SSM legal as well as this being in the heading of the article: "Twenty-four states,[a] the District of Columbia, and ten Native American tribal jurisdictions[b] issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples" so where are you getting the "states with marriage not yet in effect"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is not violation of WP:UNDUE because all countries are treated equally on this template. Any country with ssm or other unions legal only in certain jurisdictions have links to the sub-jurisdictions where it is legal. Yes, 24 states ISSUE marriage licenses but Colorado and Florida LEGALIZED same-sex marriage because Colorado is stayed and the AG said they will not defend the ban (and ordered every county to issue licenses to same-sex couples) and because Florida has a temporary stay. Don't remove FL/CO. And this discussion belongs in one of the sections above, not here. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

if this discussion keeps popping up then it means im not the only one seeing a problem here, CO and FL then can always be listed separately they are two states, as for FL there is an ongoing discussion if FL even qualifies for SSM pending. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are also people who don't see a problem and see a problem with removing the links to individual states. I am unaware of a dispute about Florida. This discussion belongs here. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said the state links can easily be added to the table and we already have a footer in the form of a template. Template:Same-sex unions in the United States what is the benefit of linking the state articles here. Also if you want to combine this section with the other feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to help keep clear where consensus lies: I felt it was too cluttered before, and that has only become worse with today's expansion (to be clear: this is the only manner in which I think today's changes made things worse.) I'd go with the state count and the link; if the list in SSM in the US is unsatisfactory, then we could link it directly to Template:Same-sex unions in the United States. (Yes, I know that linking into template space instead of article space is an odd move... but it just may be crazy enough to work!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we doing this with other countries too or just the United States? We have to be consistent, we can't just link all of the U.S.'s states into one but not do the same thing for other countries...

24 states

10 tribes

2 states^* (What page would this link to?)

I prefer the template link over the link that's been being used. However, I still oppose linking all of the states into one. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that if any other country takes up at least three sublines, then yes, we should do similar shrinkage too. That is not currently the situation --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think awhile ago someone suggested that if the number of states ever went over 25, instead of listing the states that allow it, switch over to those that don't. It would basically say same-sex marriage is legal in the United States with the exception of the listed states. That way the list would shrink rather than grow. I'm not sure if it would fit in with the rest of the template, but it's one possible option to reduce the clutter. It will soon be up to 30. Axelfar (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not like there is limited space in the template. If we needed to free up space for something else more important it would be another matter, but we don't. Listing each state separately seems appropriate, since each state actually links to its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am still seeing no reason why we cant do this, why not put an Asterisk after the 30 states then as I reworded above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Knowledgekid87: Because then people will think that same-sex marriage was legalized in 30 states, but isn't in effect in any of those states. Prcc27 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That is where the Asterisk can come in, we already use it to show this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Knowledgekid87: You're misunderstanding... If we put an asterisk next to "33 states", people will think same-sex marriage is only legal in D.C. and the 10 tribes. Not only will they think that same-sex marriage is not yet in effect in Wyoming and Florida; they will also think it isn't in effect in the 31 states with same-sex marriage. By the way, you shouldn't change my text without asking... Prcc27 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest moving DC to the end of the list

Instead of making it a request, I'll start a discussion on this instead. On the main "SSM in the US page", numbers of states with marriage legality were being changed a lot (much like Idaho on the template). I don't know if that was because Idaho was listed on the template and people didn't see the asterisk, or if people were counting DC as a state. Would moving DC to the end of the list help avoid this possible confusion? Moreover, would separating DC from the actual states be a good idea as DC isn't a true state as such? On the main pages, DC is always added at the end (like "[list of states] and the District of Columbia recognise/perform same-sex marriage"), so there is already precedent there. What do other people think of this? Kumorifox (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If so, we may want to give it its own bullet with a fuller name to effectively separate it from the list of states (either District of Columbia or Washington, DC.) Although really, I think it time to get past listing states, just bring it down to:

• 29 out of 50 states
• Washington, DC
• 10 tribes

--Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole listing of every state is a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That works too, especially since the tribes are not listed separately either. Though the link would have to direct to a succinct summary of which states currently have legality, along with links to the relevant states' SSM pages. And this summary will need to be updated regularly, with the eye on further developments. Kumorifox (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with just listing a number of states. The point is not to "keep score", but to be able to see what each state's status is with a handy link to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support moving DC down separate from the states. However, removing the individual states' articles has already been proposed and failed here, here, and here. Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this idea. Also, shouldn't Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten be moved to the actual Netherlands listing and not be a footnote then? (especially because the Netherlands listing has a "netherlands proper" bullet point to begin withBigdaddybrabantio (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• The article explains how same-sex marriage is different in Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten. Prcc27 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, we'd have to do the same thing with Mexico and their capital... Prcc27 (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bigdaddybrabantio: No, since Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten do not fall directly under Dutch jurisdiction. Much like England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are separated, and not collectively called the UK in the template. They are the same country, but have different rules. Kumorifox (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage isn't fully legal in Aruba, Curaçao, and St. Maarten like it is in the rest of the country; that's why the footnote is there. Prcc27 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the concept that eliminating the individual state listings "failed" doesn't reflect the actual conversations; it looks like that change was getting majority support overall, just wasn't implemented. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so far we have 2 clear supporting votes for separating DC (and by extension, separating Mexico City, as Prcc27 stated) and none against. I doubt that's good enough for now, but let's please keep the discussion on track for the moment, as I don't know when to call consensus if there are no clearly opposing voices to this issue. The whole "messy large number of states" is a different matter. Kumorifox (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Edits like this one are reasons why I proposed this change. It's a minor issue but might avoid a lot of well-intentioned but unnecessary edits with just a simple rearrangement. Kumorifox (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

USA - too many states?

Is the USA reaching that point at which there are too many states to list individually, and we should change to something like "20 states, 8 tribes"? - htonl (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I updated this template's sandbox to show what that would look like. I could go either way on it. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the individual states. There seems to be plenty of room to list them all in the template and they all do link to individual articles. If each state didn't have its own distinct article on the subject, I might feel differently about it. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rreagan007. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if we did this with other countries, but I prefer having the states listed. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I *think* the only other countries where there are more than 15 internal units where marriage has been that much of a one at a time by internal unit, issue are Brazil which is now completely ME, and Mexico which will probably be as screwy as the US is now within 5 years.Naraht (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Canada was bit-by-bit, but with 10 provinces and 3 territories, it totals less than 15 internal units. When 9 (IIRC) of those 13 had passed a SSM law, the national government decided to try for a national law to bring the last four into line. Maybe when the USA reaches 34 or so, somebody will propose a federal law. So, we're about half-way there. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Brazil maxed out at 13 states before the Supreme Court stepped in and legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country. As for the US, we'll almost certainly have a Supreme Court case in the next two years. Congress doesn't have jurisdiction over state marriage laws, only over federal recognition. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's actually not true... DOMA was passed by congress and the Respect for Marriage Act was already proposed in Congress. Congress does have jurisdiction over state marriage laws because federal law overrules state law (Supremacy Clause). Prcc twenty-seven (talk)

I agree, the USA has too many states. At minimum, the Dakotas, the Virginias, the Carolinas and Colorado/Wyoming should be merged, Delaware should be given back to Pennsylvania or merged with Maryland and Idaho should be split and given to Montana and Utah. :)Naraht (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. President --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd also support not to list them all; the US is now using up 7 lines, no other country has more than 3. (If possible, it'd be nice to have a pop-up window opening when hovering over "20 states" which does give the full list; same for tribes.) The template is supposed to be a short overview.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with Roengenium... This should stop at some point and 20-odd entries seems to be the right moment... Those who are really interested will find their info 1 click away.... L.tak (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Remember, the US is taking up half the "recognition" space as well. Because of the complexities in the US, it is understandably taking up disproportionate space in the articles, but at this point, the template is just becoming a wall of two-character abbreviations, most of which probably aren't recognized by non-US readers (and more than a few US readers) anyway. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. As a non-American, I don't know any of the state abbreviations (some, like NY or DC, are easily guessed, but most are not), although I know all US states' full names. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've implemented the change, linking "19 states" to the corresponding table of the US article. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the US should be split off into it's own template for the purposes of listing each state? Such as done with Template:LGBT in Canada Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

We do have Template:Same-sex unions in the United States. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 06:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Have we considered listing the exceptions? As it's now 32-18, maybe list US (except AL, etc.)? 129.59.38.147 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Too Many States (Again!)

Well over half of all states in the USA now have legal same-sex marriage. Perhaps the time has come to consider making a change to the template, so that it says something like "All states, except...". As additional states change their stance we could simply delete them from the list of exceptions.

(Similarly, once same-sex marriage is introduced in Scotland, we might simply say "legal in the UK, except Northern Ireland". I'm not sure about the politics, but I suppose that if Ireland (Eire) adopts same-sex marriage then Northern Ireland will not be too far behind.)

I'd be interested to read other people's comments. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Of course with the other counties with exceptions (Denmark, except Greenland, etc), there are only one or two exceptions. I saw we wait until the number goes below ten. Czolgolz (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on whether or not we should make that change, but it would also have to take into account territories, such as PR, VI, etc., where there is no same-sex marriage. Tinmanic (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm personnly against the "United States except [...]", even if there are 48 states on 50 in a near future.. Titanicophile (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless we can find a way to quickly link people to the relevant states, I oppose the "all states except..." proposal. The template mentions where marriage is recognised and/or performed, or soon will be in some cases, not where it is not recognised. I agree that it will get messy over time, especially when more countries with separate regions will get disparity (like Mexico), but I believe it is still the best way of providing the facts where people can marry, not where they can't. That should be a separate template or page, in my opinion. Apparently there is a US template already, which is good enough for me. Kumorifox (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@RomanSpa: Do not confuse politics in Ireland with politics in Northern Ireland. Whatever Ireland does has no impact and little influence on the north; we might get marriage equality here in Ireland, but the north will just do their own thing, and if they refuse it, it's not going to happen regardless of what Ireland itself does. Kumorifox (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeat, the US is getting too much weight like this; and it is time to change. Luckily, we have a dedicated US template, so from every US page there is a direct link. There is no real need to have a direct link from Luembourg to -say- Maine and the intermediate step via the US-article is good enough... For the UK, we could do the same, but it is less urgent, as they use up only three lines now... L.tak (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Perfect! A dedicated US template would solve a lot of trouble! Just link the overall template to the US version, and include the US template on US-related pages, either instead of, or in addition to the world-wide template. Kumorifox (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A template isn't necessary. All that is necessary is a link to a list. The text here could look something like—

United States: 31† states and DC

† Not yet in effect in one state.

Of course, we still have to find or create an appropriate list. -Rrius (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree; I think simply saying "X states, DC and X tribes" is the best option. As for a link, we could take Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state or List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions though those aren't the best articles imho. We can also just link it to Same-sex marriage in the United States as well, it doesn't have to be different. SPQRobin (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this change. Just saying how many states does not tell you which states. By the same logic, why don't we just say "X number of countries" and not list each country individually? The purpose of a nav template like this is to give all the information and links, not just summarize it. Many U.S. states have more population than many of the countries listed individually on the template, thus impacting more people and being of more interest to our readers. And since this is an English Wikipedia template, being able to see which specific U.S. states have legal same-sex marriage and having the links to those specific articles is probably of higher interest to the average English Wikipedia reader than most of the other countries listed in the template. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, why don't we use the full names of the U.S. states? Not all people know all the abbreviations. Anyway, there is an obvious difference in that the U.S. states are not sovereign states so "X number of countries" is not a fair comparison (and the point of this template would be lost). I understand your point about this being the English Wikipedia and the large population of the U.S., but the U.S. states currently take up about 1/4 of the marriage section (and increasing), which is arguably disproportionally much. SPQRobin (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, American readers are probably over 1/4 of the people who read the English Wikipedia, so that seems pretty reasonable to me. And it is true that U.S. states are not sovereign states, but then again neither is Scotland. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@SPQRobin: Then what do you suggest instead? Yes, I agree that listing every state is messy, but it's the best way I know to show the full information. If you know of a better way, then please, by all means, suggest it. There was mention of a dedicated template for the US, does that actually exist, yes or no? Because now I'm confused (again). If it does, I prefer we use that, or at least link to it, to avoid the mess in this template with ever increasing state numbers, and it would be a precedent for once other countries with separate districts/states/whatever legalise marriage only in certain parts. If this template or an equivalent does not exist, then either someone make it (I don't know how to make a template, though I can edit its contents) or keep the status quo, but let's avoid reporting confusing, incomplete, or inaccurate information (such as simply listing "United States" while it is not 100% legal there). We all want to resolve this issue, and we all want to keep the quality of the information as complete and accurate as possible. But unless new alternatives are offered (since simply removing the states has hit a lot of resistance, and I agree with that sentiment, as omission is not an accurate way of reporting facts), we'll just keep going around in circles with these discussions. Kumorifox (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said I agree with putting "X states, DC, X tribes"; I don't see any other good alternatives. I would absolutely be against just listing "United States" without any further information concerning the states. And there is a detailed U.S. template {{Same-sex unions in the United States}} which is however put at the bottom of the page. SPQRobin (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If we do that for the U.S., then for consistency, under Mexico we should say "3 states" and under the UK we should say "3 countries". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Then that is the template that should be used, in my opinion. The proposed link in the Same-sex Unions template saying "X states" should then link to the template you mentioned, meaning people might have to click twice instead of once to get to the state of interest, but it will give a much neater template here. Though similar implementations will then have to be carried out for other multi-region countries, like Mexico (I'm avoiding the UK since I believe the autonomy level in the UK is higher than that of US states and each part warrants its own mention for now, but I could be wrong; if I am, the UK should also be treated as a single country linked to its own summary or template). If this linking system can be implemented smoothly, then it seems to be the cleanest option; if not, then my preference is the (albeit slightly messy) status quo. Kumorifox (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong actually. From a legal standpoint, a U.S. state actually has more sovereignty than does a constituent country of the UK. The U.S. is a federal system with sovereignty shared between the states and the federal government, whereas the UK is a unitary state with all sovereignty vested in the British Parliament. Despite recent devolution to Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments, the British Parliament still retains full sovereignty, as they can undo that devolution at any time through a simple act of Parliament. The U.S. federal government can't dissolve state governments. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

While you are right, in my opinion that is not that relevant. The problem at hand is that we have a long list of U.S. states making the template less user-friendly, whereas listing the few Mexican states and the UK countries don't make a practical difference. I would prefer to be pragmatic here and not be too detailed on which countries or jurisdictions are more important. SPQRobin (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess that is where we disagree. I think listing all the states individually and linking to their respective articles makes the template more user friendly and practical. Most peoples' main objection seems to boil down to aesthetics, that listing them all takes up space and some people think it looks "cluttered" and don't like the way it looks. I don't think that is a good enough reason to remove relevant and useful information from the template. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• If a federal court has said it is unconstitutional to not allow SSM, then there is no reason to list any state, period. It's the whole country. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Try to get a same sex marriage license in Missouri or Alabama and tell us it's the whole country. The court said the federal government will recognize SSM marriage that is legal in a particular state, but it's not legal in all states. Czolgolz (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Technical 13, that is not how the federal court system works. The only federal court whose decisions apply to the whole country is the U.S. Supreme Court. Tinmanic (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• That is not how the U.S. judicial system works. I really hope you are just joking about this, because if you are serious then it shows a complete lack of understanding on your part. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not this proposal again.. I oppose listing the exceptions because those states don't have relevant same-sex marriage pages and states with ssm do. I oppose just stating the number of states as well. Prcc27 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal of the list of states, and encourage the "31 of 50 states" format instead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I also Support the removal of all the states enough is enough it looks like a mess and WP:UNDUE towards US coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Then you would also support saying "3 of 31 states" for Mexico, and "2 of XX regions" for the UK? Not sure how many there are in the UK, a quick count gives at least 7 if you include Jersey, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. Kumorifox (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, because it would not save significant space. If 27 of the US states were to suddenly repeal SSM somehow, then I'd be fine with listing the remaining states (though sad over the situation). The US has hundred of possible jurisdictions to cover, given the >500 Native American tribes and villages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so at what number do individual articles take up "too much space"? 5? 10? 15? 20? 25? 30? That still needs to be established.. Otherwise, we are being inconsistent. Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal of the list of states, it's getting way too big. It's distracting. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)