File talk:World marriage-equality laws (out of date).svg

 

This file is/was the subject of a discussion on the English Wikipedia. Please read the discussion there before starting a new thread here.

color

I think the bright green looks too similar to the bright blue, if that could be fixed it'd be better. (sorry I don't know a thing about svg) 200.100.39.31 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Greenland are allowed

Since October 2015 in Greenland same-sex marriages are allowed. Greenland should be marked in dark-blue colour. --Barinbelew (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

• L736E disputes that "the day 20th of may 2016 the President of the Italian Republic signed the bill. This gives the law immediate effect."
• Turnless disputes "that map only shows laws once they have taken effect. Finland is also an irreversible case but the law will only take effect in March 2017 which is why it is only coloured in yellow. The law in Italy is not in effect, it will take effect on June 5." [1]
• Prcc27 has reverted as well in agreement with Turnless disputing "Bill hasn't been signed yet. Yellow color is more accurate for now."

For now, I have reverted to the version that is in agreement with current text/captioning that is in use with this image (and without) on Wikipedia. I will be staying neutral in this, and as such, both Turnless and L736E have received warnings for edit warring. Please discuss below and form consensus to change this file, I will note that continuing to edit war after warning and before consensus is determined will result in at least a 24 hour block. ~riley (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging fellow admin Blackcat who issued one of the warnings :) ~riley (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Though Commons is much more than a host for images on Wikipedia, this image is in active use on multiple language Wikipedias. Changes to it are best done in line with how those projects wish to interpret reliable sources and the law. If anyone feels the map does not represent a particular way of understanding the underpinning legal changes, there is always the option of creating a new map as a fork of this one, though in practice this would probably be a waste of time if it is not going to be adopted by any Wikipedia articles. Commons is not the right place to debate which view is more accurate, or which sources are more reliable, so if anyone wants to open up those discussions, it's best to encourage them on the most popular talk pages of Wikipedia articles it is used in. --Fæ (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Very good point, Fae. It would be great if we could solve this locally, but I have no opposition for discussion to be taken elsewhere. The goal is dispute resolution, it doesn't matter where it occurs as long as we come to agreement and stop this pointless edit warring. ~riley (talk)

Just my two cents:

1. Turnless reverted this particular map but did a contraddictory things on other similar maps (see File:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg where Italy is represented with "active civil unions" and he was the one to move this file to this version. So, either maps are kept consistent or not. My intevention was due to this contraddictory behaviour by user Turnless: if he accepts that the law is enforced for one map, he has to accept for all maps. No point to have some representing a situation and other a different one.
2. I was removed the "autoverified" flag. This is frankly excessive with repsect to my whole history of contribution on Commons. If you have a look at my contribution history on Commons, I've been contributing since years, never misbehave, and this was the only situation where I was involved in edit warring. I please ask ~riley to give me back again the autoverified flag, since edit warring is *not* my ususal way of behaving (there's my contribution history there to show it). ::Thanks. --L736E (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The difference between that map and this, is that map states "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." therefore there is no contradiction. One map includes recent laws that may not be in effect yet, another doesn't. There is no contradiction, but instead a difference in how the files are "colourized" . Turnless is not the only one who reverted you, let's not focus on him. I am aware of your longstanding contributions, but this has shown that you cannot handle a dispute and be trusted. On enwiki you would have been served with a 24 hour block, I think temporary removal of the right is not excessive. ~riley (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just like ~riley said, the maps do not follow the same policies. The maps that only show the laws in Europe do not have to show laws only when they come into effect. I also found it quite unreasonable that they are not kept consistent with this map and left that notice on the files talk page en:File talk:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg, however no one has responded. You are free to do so if you wish. --Turnless (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think there is no reason to have both Italy and Finland yellow, since the process is irreversible. According to what the map shows now, Finland and Nepal have the same color, but the situation is pretty different since in Nepal the process could be stopped at any time. --Baronedimare (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this map? To show the actual status of national laws about the recognition of same-sex couples or to represent the activation of such recognition? The Italian Constitution states that a law becomes integral part of the Italian legislation as soon as it published on Gazzetta Ufficiale. This means that the italian bill on civil unions, having been published, it's now at all extent an integral part of the Italian legislation, which therefore officialy regulates same sex unions. The 15-days lapse reported in the publication are the ordinary technical "grace time" foreseen to allow the pubblic offices to align their documentation and files accordingly. It's not by hazard that the official naming of the bill is "Legge 20 maggio 2016" (20th May 2016, date of publication) and not "Legge 5 giugno 2016" (June 5, 2016, expiring of the technical grace period). So: does this map represent the snapshot of "laws actually enforced"? Well, then Italy should become pale blue, since according to the Italian Constitution (not to my personal point of view) the publication of the text of the law on the official State bulletin Gazzetta Ufficiale is the formal act which gives the laws full and total enforcement and validity in the Italian legislation, regardless of the term identified for starting the actuation. Does this map represent "the day people can actually take advantage of the regulations"? Then, Italy stays yellow, but at this point I will question: are we sure that this was always respected in the past history of this map file? I'm ready to bet that the answer would be "no". Under all respects, the Italian civil-union bill is now fully a law of the Italian nation with full enforcement and validity, and there's nothing else outstanding. The 15-days grace period shall not be interpreted as "the law is not yet valid": it shall be interpreted, as I explained above as "until 5th of June the public offices won't be ready to apply that law to allow preparing the relevant technical stuff", but the law by itself is in force. June 5th is a deadline for the public offices to get ready, not for the law to become active. Starting from that date it "must be granted" that it can take effect, before it may not be assured. It's quite a big difference. You should take these aspects into the correct account and not force a unique interpretation about "when a law is in force". This "when" depends on national regulations, and for Italy this "when" is the day of publication on Gazzetta Ufficiale as explicitly stated by the Italian Constitution (and not by myself as personal interpretation), --L736E (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As with my first statement, the issue of 'correctness' of the map is a question for Wikipedia not Commons.

On Commons it would be perfectly valid to host two (or more) maps, one showing the world where same-sex marriage was legally recognized and happening, and another showing where same-sex marriage was legally recognized but may or may not yet be happening depending on bureaucracy. The choice of which map to reuse is that of the reuser and where they are using it, it's not within scope of the Wikimedia Commons project to provide the most correct map but it is within scope to provide as many maps as volunteers feel may have an educational purpose and do not misrepresent themselves.

If you feel the map is misleading in some way, then I suggest you propose changes, or be bold and edit the image page text, until the text explains fully and clearly what the map represents. --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

L736E The map has respected the rule that countries are only coloured after laws take actual effect. Just take a look at the recent history yourself. --Turnless (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Color coding

What's the difference between goldenrod and light yellow? Currently they both have the same English caption... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Goldenrod refers to same-sex marriage while light yellow refers to civil unions/domestic partnerships. I added this to the caption to make it more clear. --Turnless (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (BOT)

Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha need to be changed from one to three visible grey dots. The three islands have a common Governor but each has an autonomous administrative council which decides on local law. Since January 1st, 2017, SSM is law on Ascension Island. The corresponding dot should be changed to dark blue. It is currently NOT law on the other two islands. These should be grey. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.104.133.33 (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage on Falklands islands and Faroe Islands

Same-sex marriage is allowed on Falkland islands and Faroe Islands. Both islands group should be marked in dark blue. --178.11.10.45 14:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Germany

On 30 June 2017, Germany allowed same-sex marriages by parliament. Also Same-sex adoptions become allowed in Germany.

• Sueddeutsche.de: Ehe für alle, Das änder sich für homosexuelle Paare (German)

So Germany should be coloured in darkblue in map. --88.71.51.39 18:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The law will not come into effect for another 3 months. Until then the situation remains the same. "In Kraft tritt das Gesetz drei Monate nach der Verkündigung, da den Standesämtern Zeit für die Umstellung gegeben werden soll." ("The law will come into effect three months after publication to give the registry offices time to adapt.") --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The president siged the law today, but the law come in force on 1st October, I'll suggest to edit a map in this date and not now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DR5996 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

2017: Malta

Malta should be coloured in darkblue.

• ABCNews: Malta OKs same-sex marriages over Catholic Church protest

--178.11.188.153 21:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Australia

We seem to have jumped the gun with respect to have Australia is shown on this map. --209.202.119.246 16:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• New York Times:Australia Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal

--188.96.190.14 12:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Australia, re: royal assent

I support the changing of Australia's colour before royal assent is provided. Failing to change the colour falsely suggests that royal assent might be refused. Krimin killr21 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Royal Assent has been given - can we please change Australia to Dark Blue. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.35.82.165 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Royal assent has been given and the Act will have effect from 9 December 2017: same-sex couples can give notice of intention to marry from tomorrow. See here. It should be dark blue from tomorrow. --49.183.57.172 03:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes in South America

It seem the map was changed, but not the Description key. There's countries in gold, Costa Rica and Peru, who actually don't fit the gold key. Beside, should we really include in light gold the country affected by the recent panamerican ruling? If so, it need to be detailled as such in the key.--Aréat (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The key has been updated, but Growupon keeps reverting it.

Can you explain to me how Costa Rica and Peru do not fit? There's been a court decision, and the govt of Costa Rica has announced they will obey it (appropriately, since they submitted the case), whereas the president of the Supreme Court of Peru has said that the ruling is binding on Peru as well. I've seen little coverage of Peru, so maybe that's an inaccurate summary. For other countries, there seems to be debate over whether the ruling is an advisory opinion or a binding term of the treaty, with no announcement of acceptance by the govts. However, there is the potential that they will accept the ruling, and the map is after all intended to show at a glance the status and potential of SSM in the world, so which countries are potentially bound is of interest. (I made the light gold as light as possible and still be visible, so as not to interfere visually with seeing where SSM is actually legal or forthcoming.)

Also, I'm still not sure about Nepal and Taiwan. Nepal doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but the ruling has been made. It's just taking a long time to write a new constitution. For Taiwan, it may be that a civil-union law would satisfy the court, in which case gold is inappropriate. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, this is what you should have started with - a discussion on the map's talk page before continuously pushing for your version of the map. Issues like adding a completely new category of countries need to be discussed upon. A huge issue with that is also that countries like Ecuador cannot even be represented in this category despite being a member of the organization. Costa Rica will still have to pass a law before same-sex marriage will come into affect. After that law is passed is when it should be coloured gold on the map. Same goes for Peru. As for Taiwan, the court did specifically rule in favour of same-sex couples getting married and getting equal right as heterosexual couples and set a date after which gay couples in Taiwan will be able to marry regardless of any law passing or not. Nepal's ruling is a recommendation from the court rather than a binding decision similar to Austria and Taiwan, which is why it has still not been implemented as a law. --Growupon (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand, Nepal's court ordered that SSM be allowed in the next constitution, and Nepal has not been able to agree on a new constitution. But I have no personal knowledge of this, and the info I've read is meager. As for Taiwan, I've read arguments that civil-union law may suffice to abide wit the court ruling. I haven't done any thing to the map because again I have no idea if that is correct. But in both cases, I haven't seen a good argument that one position or the other reflects the actual situation, and suspect that perhaps none of us here on WP know what we're talking about, which is worrisome. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nepal's new constitution has been finalised in 2015 already. Last month they elected their new lower house to replace the second constituent assembly, and next month they will indirectly elect the upper house, putting an end to the post monarchy transition. The communists won the election, however, so same sex marriage could be expected. We shall see when the new government eventually take office. Anyways, as for the gold color : the ruling didn't make it de facto legal instantly in all these countries. They still have to go through the usual process, and could very well never do so. Barbados government just made same sex marriage illegal again after a legalising ruling earlier last year. I don't see them turning around now. Same for very homophobic countries like Jamaica. So, gold should only be used for Costa Rica and Peru or another of the affected countries if they legalise but set up a date further in time. Until then, they haven't legalised, their governement could very well fall or change opinion following protests, etc, so no crystall ball changes please. Costa Rica look like it is very likely to legalise, and through legislation, so it will probably be an instant dark blue, in my opinion. But only then should we change the map. As for Peru, the head of the judiciary said the country should follow the ruling, but it wasn't a binding ruling of him. The Peru government said they're considering it, and will announce the decision next week. Could be yes, could be no. Thus, in my opinion, the recent gold and light gold changes should be reverted. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Aréat. No reason of having countries in gold until there is absolute certainty that the law will take effect, which includes knowing a set date. Once again, actual legislative proceedings must occur in each of the countries affected by the Inter-American court ruling before marriage passes and until that happens we have no certainty that same-sex marriage will be legal.--Growupon (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact, there's presidential and legislative elections scheduled in Costa Rica on 4 February, so although very unlikely (most presidential candidates expressed their support for SSM), a new government could very well decide it isn't the priority anymore. Costa Rica work with coalitions of several parties, after all. It probably will be legalised, but this does show how the map shouldn't present some guessing of the future as facts. I believe Kwamikagami's changes were made in good faith, but the use of the gold color is simply wrong as it is, and we shouldn't be changing the key description to retcon the error. All the pages featuring the map still present gold as "Marriage legalized but not yet in effect", by the way.--Aréat (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The gold is only appropriate for showing the countries where same-sex marriage will surely be legalized based on already made legislative changes.--Growupon (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a straw-man argument. Only Costa Rica and Peru are gold, so Jamaica and Barbados are irrelevant. The key for their color only states that they are signatories to the ACHR, which they are.

As for it not being finalized, of course a country can always change its mind. It's happened before. That's why they're not blue. Austria, Jersey and Taiwan could change their mind too -- all you would need is a change in govt to one that challenges the court decision. We don't engage in CRYSTALBALL here. When there's a binding court decision, OR a govt that announces it will abide by a court decision that SSM needs to be recognized, that's what gold is for -- unless you wish to divide gold into subcategories. There are so few gold countries at any one time that IMO that would not be a useful modification. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Austria and Taiwan are Supreme Court decisions and same-sex marriage will be legalized regardless of government change. Jersey is very unlikely to change as they adopted and voted upon an official legislative stance in support of legalizing same-sex marriage. That is very different from the South American countries where it is still unknown if the government will actually vote in support of SSM regardless of how likely or how unlikely it may be as those are merely speculations and CRYSTALBALL. Maps have to be based upon actual facts when depicting laws. "Announcements" of legalizing same-sex marriage are not guarantees that the legalization would actually happen and there is no point of showing that on the map. --Growupon (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

SSM will be recognized is Taiwan if the govt doesn't act. But if it does act, Civil Unions may be enough to satisfy the court -- as happened in Colombia. In Nepal, the constitution was evidently enacted without SSM despite the ruling of the Supreme Court. So, no, gold doesn't mean that SSM will be recognized, only that the govt or court have said that it will or must be. Costa Rica, Peru and now Panama fall into that category. It's possible that some or all of them may end up not recognizing SSM. But that's always a problem when predicting the future.

Hell, this is even a problem with blue: There are a couple Mexican states that recognized SSM, which we then colored blue, only for the governor or s.o. to reverse the decision (e.g. Sonora). And in the state of Alabama there are a dozen counties that refuse to rec SSM despite the court rulings. (The fact that no-one can get married there is beside the point -- that's just them covering their asses. And at least one, and one in Texas, registers hetero marriage.) So even when a state qualifies for blue we cannot be sure that SSM will actually be recognized. This is an inherent problem with current events. All we can do is say that it looks like states XYZ will soon rec SSM. That's all that gold can mean. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again the Supreme Court decision in Nepal was a recommendation and not binding ruling which is why the constitution could change without Same-sex marriage and why Nepal was removed as being coloured gold. Taiwan's ruling is specifically in favour of same-sex marriage and people's right to marry each other. Most Taiwanese jurisdiction already recognize a type of same-sex union that isn't marriage. A ruling in favour of marriage is set to make way for marriage and not civil unions. That is the problem with colouring Peru, Costa Rica and now also Panama in gold as there is no actual legislative action or court decision that took place in the country and will take effect regardless of government action. We are not trying to "predict the future" as you said, that is literally CRYSTALBALL. We are trying to colour countries that will most-certainly have same-sex marriage based on actual legislative actions or court decisions that would take place, once again, regardless of government changes. Bringing up mexican states that went back to their previous colour from blue is absolutely redundunt as that is a completely different issue. Same-sex marriages actually legally took place in that jurisdiction which is why it was coloured differently, that decisions was based on on actual factual changes unlike changing South American countries. We cannot base a category on this map to colour in countries with the criteria being "that it looks like states XYZ will soon rec SSM" as that is CRYSTALBALL. Gold should mean countries that will legalize same-sex marriage to our current knowledge (taking away any obvious possibility of law change as existing with every other law), meaning it is backed with actual legislative change or court decisions that don't require a legislative change.

Just to once again show that legal action must be taken before same-sex marriage is legalized in the South American countries, here is an article talking about the same-sex couple that tried to get married today in Costa Rica [2]. As you can see, marriages will only be recognized after "laws forbidding gay marriage are changed". The president, ruling party or government do not get to make that decision on their own without abiding with the legislative process. It is not up to us to determine whether or not those law changes will actually take place, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is, it is only up to us to have the map show the countries in which those changes have occurred. --Growupon (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus for the light yellow color "Signatory states to the ACHR, which requires recognition" being used the way it is currently being used. That color was originally for countries that legalize civil unions. As a result, I made the dark-gray color the new civil unions legalized color. Prcc27 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There was never a consensus on any of the changes made by Kwamikagami in regards to the South American countries. --Growupon (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't someone just revert it to the way the color code and definition was before Kwamikagami made his unilateral changes? We're already several users expressing our disapproval on this page and on Wikipedia. He had no consensus to make such important changes affecting a lot of different pages left with ill fitted description key.--Aréat (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As you can see I tried multiple times. Besides that I left a message on his user talk page User talk:Kwamikagami#Same-sex marriage map, after which he left one on mine telling me to "stop screwing with the map" User talk:Growupon#Same-sex marriage map. I also brought this issue up on the admin notice board here Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Kwamikagami. --Growupon (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's proof the Peruvian government is actually complying/enacting laws/notifying ministries, this is still based entirely off of assumption. Panama simply notified its ministries-- it didn't tell them to comply and issue licenses or set a date for enactment or adopt the decision as precedent. Costa Rica also hasn't passed any laws (yet) nor set a date on enactment. At current, marriage is not recognized in either, and there is no date (if) and when it will be -- any color would prematurely recognize a law that [does not exist]. Coloring in the rest of the IACHR appellate in any color is also a prediction-- we have no idea if a country will renounce like Trinidad and Tobago.

Taiwan and Austria's rulings explicitly state when marriages will automatically commence, regardless if laws get passed or not, which is why they are gold. If a government wants to prevent equality, they will need to pass a law (to supersede the existing legalization ruling). This is the same reason why even though Bermuda repealed marriage, it is still colored -- because the repeal law has not yet official been enacted. If the ECJ ruled in favor with Romania, and required other EU countries to comply, the map still shouldn't be updated until countries actually pass laws or have a strict enactment date. We are showing independent jurisdictions, not intergovernmental jurisdictions, otherwise all of Mexico would be filled due to amparo. Nin10dude317 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

since the vast majority of users (count me in) is in favor of reverting the map back to what it was before this "edit-war-saga" I think we should undo the changes in Latin-America and use the light gold color again for "govt decided to legalize civil unions" instead of "signatory countries to...". In my opinion, the changes made the map less clear and some of them are rather speculations than facts. also I believe not all the countries indicated as "signatory countries" are correct... keep in mind that st. Helena and SGSSI also changed in this period and that these changes should not be reverted. Sander000 (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the map's previous version. Hopefully this finally puts an end to this issue. --Growupon (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would it put an end to it? Funny to speak of a "vast majority" where there are only a few of us here. The vast majority are those who see the map as it is and don't object, and so never come here. The same vast majority that are fine with Costa Rica, Panama and Peru being listed in the Timeline for recognition, date to be determined.

Gold has not meant a law has been passed or a date has been set. AFAICT there is no "speculation" here, though our reading of sources may be wrong. If individual countries are wrong (Peru, Panama), then present RS and we will change them.

And yes, if the EU were to make a judgement that SSM should be recognized, then all EU states w/o SSM would take the same color as the IACHR states. Kwamikagami (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Stating that those who did not vote are automatically at their side is in my opinion the *worst* argument ever made up by human beings (politicians). Counting "those who see the map and don't object" on your side is like saying "well only 15% of population turned up to vote in this referendum (10% voted no, 5% yes), but if the other 85% had shown interest, they would certainly have voted yes, so 90% of people backs me up...". If you go by majority rule... you can only count those who DO vote/speak up. Since these changes are the most debated topic in the history of this map and most users showing concern, I think we can say not everyone is very happy with the changes. Gold has always meant that it already *was legalized* but not yet in effect (or so it was stated on many wikipedia pages that use this map). I think the most valuable argument you have is that it is indeed your map, and that you have the right to alter the definition of a color (?) if you think this is an improvement...and that we perhaps should create a different one if we don't like the changes.(but this indeed...is only my opinion ;) )(small remark: I am NOT SURE about this, but I don't think Jamaica is a signatory country to the Court...(again, not sure!) if the map stays this way... can this at least be verified?) Sander000 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The numbers aren't the deciding factor anyway, since we're not a democracy, and as you say, you can always create a different map and let the editors of the WP articles decide which to use. Currently, the WP-en article lists Costa Rica, Panama and Peru in the timeline of legalization, for an unspecified future date. IMO the timeline and map should match up -- one shouldn't say SSM is to be legalized in a country when the other says it will not.

No, gold has not always meant legalized, only that it credibly will be. We've used it when a party controls the means to legalize SSM and promises to do so (e.g. Chile, which didn't pan out). The definitions of several colors have changed over time as unforeseen situations have arisen.

Yes, Jamaica is a signatory country, and I doubt they're going to implement the ruling. Same for the other non-hispanophone members -- it's hard to imagine any of them implementing it in the foreseeable future. But it's still of interest who the ruling applies to -- LGBT groups in many of these countries are using it to support their advocacy -- and it would be OR for us to judge which are likely to apply it and which are not. Something like this would probably occur if the EU were to pass a similar ruling (which, from what I understand, some in the govt are planning to do once enough member states rec SSM) -- there are states in the EU that would not implement the ruling, at least not right away, such as some of those that have a constitutional ban. But nonetheless the pressure would be on for them to address the issue, and thus who the ruling applies to would be of interest. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Saying this is 'not a democracy' is the same as stating everyone can 'screw with the map' as much as he/she likes... Then there is no point in talking on a 'talk'-page anymore... letting the editors decide between which of two maps will be used, will only move the 'edit-war' from this page to the wikipedia page... not exactly an improvement of the situation I guess... Well, I gave my opinion on the issue, not much more I can do... I will wait and see how this eventually turns out Sander000 (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The changes you made to the map were reverted due to a lack of concensus here. Please don't forcefully add it until the majority of user in favor that you claim exist has spoken here and made such a consensus.--Aréat (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please revert the map and end this discussion! I come to Wikipedia because I trust it to provide factual information. When I first saw that Peru was gold and 'legalized but not yet in effect', I was completely shocked and spent hours trawling the Internet to try to verify this incredible news! Of course, it is not the case at all. Someone above says that most people are happy with the information and do not come here to contest it; yes, of course; this is because people some to Wikipedia because they trust it to provide factual information. I'm sorry, but, if Peru, for example, remains gold and 'legalized but not yet in effect', then whoever likes may as well take their crayons and color in the map any color they like. And people like me will just have to stop using wikipedia for information on SSM. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.104.133.96 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I had corrected the key, only to be reverted. (By Area, maybe?) Kwamikagami (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite the fact that this map was initially uploaded by Kwamikagami, I think it's ridiculous to say that he has the right to dictate absolutely everything that goes on it while multiple users continue to express their disagreement with the changes. This map is greatly used on a multitude of pages all over Wikipedia, so it is fair that other users get a say on what should go on it. What is the point of having talk pages at all in that case, or even having the idea of reaching consensus. I don't think there is absolutely any point on making other maps as this one is already heavily used and it is much better to stick to a single map that everyone can agree on and use. As one of the previous users mentioned, having multiple maps will only cause edit-warring on Wikipedia articles and overall it is much better to stick to a single map for such grand topics. So far, Kwamikagami has been the only user to agree with his changes, I do not think that he has the right to go absolutely against consensus and continue to push his changes for a very widely-used map, even if he was the original uploader. --Growupon (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to change the rules that Commons works by. People are given broad control of their contributions, with the exceptions of copyright violation, libel, death threats and the like.

Of course the talk page is useful. If there's an error in the map, point it out (with evidence) at it will be changed. But you don't get to run around imposing your will on others with nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT.

Again, if you don't like my map, create your own! Kwamikagami (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: , you don't own the map, so please stop acting like the owner and try to achieve consensus.. Anyways, regarding your proposed changes I don't see a problem with them, but I would propose a few changes. When governmental officials in the U.S. announced that they would comply with rulings, they were colored dark yellow, but that's when there was a set date for it to go into effect. So I would say that consensus for coloring Panama and Costa Rica is a bit iffy, but we could easily establish a new consensus. There is no clear consensus on what to do when there is a precedent for ssm. When the Fourth Circuit set a precedent we didn't do anything to those states, but we did use the dark yellow color when SCOTUS set a precedent so that was a bit inconsistent. Since we did have a precedent color on the U.S. map, I don't see a problem with adding one to the world map. I think the cream color should be switched with the dark gray color and the wording should say "A binding precedent made in favor of same-sex marriage, not yet legalized" or something along those lines. Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, maybe we should make a Civil Union precedent color as well... Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure about Costa Rica.. The Superior Council of Notaries said they won't perform same-sex marriages until the law is actually changed. So it would remain being colored with the precedent color. Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Finally, a basis for discussion other than IDONTLIKEIT. The consensus on the WP page now seems to be to leave these countries off the timeline, and the map should match, so I'll leave it alone. If we decide to put them back in the timeline, they should of course go back on the map -- the consensus at WP should apply here.

Of course CR won't start SSM until the law has changed, but that's true for most countries that have gone through st like this. I don't see how CR and Panama at least (not so sure about Peru) differ from many other countries we've but an TBD in the timeline and gold on the map, but I don't know the details. (Not sure any of us do.) Kwamikagami (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, stop talking about IDONTLIKEIT. All of the users here that disagreed with your changes brought up valid points and provided a lot of reasoning for their position. Also, I would suggest you read COM:OWN#Don't allow possessiveness to lead to the creation of redundant files which specifically talks about discouraging possessiveness over files and encourages users to reach consensus over one file rather than creating another one. So, continuously telling everyone to make their own map if we don't like your changes is not the way to solve this disagreement. The policy clearly instructs users to discuss the issue which is exactly what we have been doing here. --Growupon (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Once a file is posted, it belongs to the Wikipedia community. If someone wants to act alone, they can create their own website. That is not what Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.104.133.96 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia, and that is how things work here. (Or, at least it's how things have worked here.) People are given broad leeway in the control of their contributions. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read the Commons policy that Growupon linked to..? If we're going to do things your way we're going to do it through consensus, not through unilateral edits. Prcc27 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Good evening everyone I am the user that give infos of Mexico situation like the one of Guerrero municipalities etc but I always forgot my password and didnt bother to log in. Now in this case let me tell you I am from one of the affected countries(Honduras). In my country the lgbt groups have accept that this was an advisory opinion, this means we may sue the country with the ICH and then they may issue a ruling but we know its going to be favorable base on the opinion. Our government has only state that they might recognize some rights but not marriage so in other words it will depends on the country. Countries like Panama that have a case will probably issue a favorable ruling as jurists in that country say that they opinion was binding but others say that as not being a ruling its not binding. Peru has a recognition case and yes a judge I believe that chief judge say the opinion was binding but he is only a vote of the court it might very well be the other judges disagree and maintain the marriage ban. Costa Rica and Panama both have support of there government but as we see thanks to this opinion anti lgbt candidate in CR is now in first place and one thing he has promise is to leave the court and ignore this ruling. We should wait until both countries start issuing ss licenses as things change almost daily.--Allancalderini12 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! The situation indeed look like it can't be considered certain to lead to SSM in the concerned countries, even if some are very likely to. You mention that it wasn't the head justice in Peru who gave a favorable opinion but only one among others. That's not how we've added it on the page. Do you have any source, even in spanish, about it? --Aréat (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry my English is not that good, what I try to say was that a judge in Peru didn't remember which one was the one to mention about this decision being binding. After looking in internet I see that it was the chief justice of the Peruvian supreme court. He might say its binding but if the other associate justices in Peru dont agree with his perspective then ssm would still be ban in Peru. As for CR I found this interesting news, it might shed some light of how to color it.It looks that the head of the notaries explain that they are just waiting for the civil registry to issue new guidences allow ssm but the civil registry said that they will do that after the general election.--Allancalderini12 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC) https://semanariouniversidad.com/ultima-hora/direccion-notariado-espera-orden-del-registro-civil-dar-luz-verde-matrimonio-gay/

§== Recognition colors == Can we please turn the recognition color back to the way it used to be? There was no consensus to change it, and the current color is to close to the "unregistered cohabitation" color. Also, shouldn't we re-add the limited federal recognition color since that would still apply to American Samoa..? Prcc27 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the dark green colour? I think it's better to keep it the way it is right now for consistency with other same-sex marriage maps. --Growupon (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Those other maps focus on homosexuality in general. This map focuses primarily on marriage, so it doesn't make sense that the civil union color is darker than the same-sex marriage recognition color when this map is concerned less about civil unions and more about marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the current recognition color either. But if we changed it back, we'd probably want to change the other maps to match. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I just proposed it at the other map's talk page. Prcc27 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

So, can we assume by the lack of opposition that we have consensus..? Prcc27 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I started, but didn't know how to get the stripes, so just colored Estonia and Aruba green. Someone else can fix those. (Didn't bother w Israel, since the recognition there is so minimal.) Kwamikagami (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

NotGrownUp is edit warring again instead of engaging in discussion, so back to your preferred color. And grey this time for EU and IACHR rulings. That should be less confusing. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think comments from two users can be called a consensus. Invite some users who are active with editing same-sex marriage topics and would be interested to discuss. My issue on the topic is only that it is consistent with all of the maps. Also Kwamikagami, there was never a consensus on adding the grey so stop pushing your changes without discussing them first and then going on my talk page and calling me "noise" if you're not happy with Wikipedia and Commons policy of discussing before changing files. --Growupon (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You are the one that unilaterally changed the recognition color without any discussion or consensus. You are welcome to invite users to join the discussion (as long as you don't violate WP:CANVASS), but please do not go against the current consensus here. If you want consistency so bad, maybe you should change the recognition color on the other maps to dark green since so far nobody has objected to that change. For the record, my support for the gray coloring is fairly weak. While something similar was done on the U.S. SSM map, I feel like these advisement rulings have significantly less legal impact than the precedents set in the United States did. So are these advisements significant enough to even merit a new color? I realize that there is not consensus for the gray color, but I would appreciate it if we went back to the original recognition color since we never agreed to change it in the first place. I would revert you myself, but I don't have Inkscape and if I press the "revert" button the gray colors would also be reinstated too. Prcc27 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

He's also a sock of a blocked user. Not sure why the block didn't take effect on Commons. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Israel and an island out in the Pacific is still colored under the original recognition color. Could you please fix it? Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you know which island that is? I'd like to confirm before doing anything. I don't see anything that fits. --- ah, it's American Samoa. Changing to grey.

As for Israel, is there any real ecognition of foreign SSM? The WP article states that the court defined such records as strictly "for statistical purposes", thereby avoiding official recognition of same-sex marriages by the state. So it sounds like either Israel doesn't recognize them, or the court issued some legal BS to have it both ways. Do people with such "statistical" recognition have the same rights as couples with religiously sanctioned marriage?

Kwamikagami (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We used to have a color for limited federal recognition (which American Samoa would qualify as), but that has since been removed. As for Israel, I'm okay with it being gray, but at the very most it would have a green ring- nothing more. Prcc27 (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The Template

The template indicates that in Armenia, Estonia, and Israel, same-sex marriage is only recognized for some purposes only. As a result, these countries should have rings and should not have solid recognition colors. Also, our map is inconsistent with the template with regards to Taiwan. Either we need to change Taiwan or we need to change the template. I suggest we discuss Taiwan's situation on the template's talk page to straighten it out. Prcc27 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove dot from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Maybe remove the dot from the territory? South Georgia is large enough to not need a not. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.173.179.46 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I honestly thought about removing it, but it may be too thin to see the colour. Let's see what other users think. --Growupon (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The dot is inherited from the blank Commons map. SGeorgia is smaller than Cyprus, Israel etc which have dots. And it is its own territory (even if uninhabited). Kwamikagami (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the dot; the territory is too small to be visible and a larger dot is consistent with other BOTs; on the other hand, I think New Caledonia's dot is too big; the island is large enough to be visible and the larger dot is inconsistent with the smaller dots which represent other French overseas departments which, unlike BOTs, are not distinct territories. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.104.133.96 (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what is the rationale behind smaller v bigger dots? OK, Saint Helena is a big dot, whereas Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are small; this makes sense because SH is the main island of the BOT. But why does Kerguelen, an uninhabited French Antarctic island, have a big dot, whereas Mayotte and Reunion, French departments with large populations, have small dots? Because they're departments? But New Caledonia and Polynesia have big dots. These are inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.104.133.96 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, islands with autonomy have big dots. Those who are parts of a larger body have small dot.--Aréat (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I think the blue dots next to Cuba should be removed, though, since AFAIK there is no govt on those uninhabited territories. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Russia

A same-sex marriage was recognized in Russia so their should be a green ring placed where Moscow is. [3] Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you know if a passport stamp will be accepted by the govt in general? Kwamikagami (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like now no same-sex marriages will be recognized; the passports were invalidated. [4] Prcc27 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Dots in Japan should be removed

The partnerships in the jurisdictions of Japan (Shibya etc) hold no legal value whatsoever so these dots should be removed. It's really frustrating how often people get this wrong. Paullb (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

They don't hold explicit legal value, but are instruments used with legal implications. They're issued legally, by a government entity, and are recognized in their respective wards/cities — public housing/apt leases, hospital visitation, and other municipal public services recognize the certificates, as it is a municipal ordinance. They can also be used with a koseki registration, depending on the city.

They're not enough to count as civil unions, but are basic forms of unregistered cohabitation — just not nationwide, which is why they don't have a higher status, and don't apply to national ministries and documents, nor in a court of law. The national government has stated they are permitted under the Japanese Constitution. Unlike many federated countries where such laws were introduced by states, these jurisdictions in Japan introduced them via municipal ordinances. Nin10dude317 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Updates june 2018

EU Court of Justice made a recognition ruling that is binding on entire EU. Presumably Romania (named party) and others will implement, and so eventually take the green color of Estonia, but in the meantime, as w Latin American states under the jurisdiction of the IACHR, their dark grey is appropriate. This affects Rom, Bul, Lith, Lat & Slovakia, since Pol is already light blue. Not Sark, which is not in the EU.

Alderney's date has been set, so that can go to blue.

From news coverage, it appears that Israel actually does rec foreign SSM as marriage - that is, the 'for statistical purposes' wording is a bureaucratic fudge - so I remove my objection and would change it back to green.

Putting in an upload request w Riley.

File:World marriage-equality laws edit request.svg

edit request

Kwamikagami (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

EU court does not advise those countries to recognize SSM, it even states in its ruling that they can decide themselves about SSM legislation. The only thing the ruling says, is that they have to recognize the SSM of an EU citizen with a none EU citizen to ensure the free movement of people (and their spouses) principle within the EU. So if you want to give them the dark gray colour based on this ruling, you should "again" change its definition in my opinion. Sander000 (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well sure, but that's easy enough. They are under requirement to rec foreign SSM, but it's not likely that they'll all sign up immediately.

And I forgot about Bermuda. Should it be green, because they continue to rec SSM from when they were an option, or med. blue for CU, since they're not going to rec foreign SSM? Or, since the law seems to have been blocked, should we leave it dk blue for now? Kwamikagami (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we wouldn't need to change the wording much. Only that in this case it's a binding decision rather than an advisory one (and even for the IACHR, there's disagreement as to whether it's advisory or binding -- the president of the Peruvian supreme court said it's binding). But a ruling to recognize -- that's exactly what this is: recognition of SSM of a EU citizen in another country. In the color key we don't say 'to allow', which would only fit the IACHR ruling. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Bermuda is a difficult case since the court ruled that the SSM ban was unconstitutional, thus allowing SSM again, but they postponed the court order (or something like that) for 6 weeks to give the government time to react to it... so for now it is not really legal yet (I think) and we don't know how this will evolve, so I think it is best not to mess to much with the map and leave it dark blue for now and see how things evolve over there...but if you do change it, I would say the light blue colour fits best. I am not fully convinced that the EU countries should be dark gray, since for them the description should be in my opinion "Country subject to an international ruling to recognize FOREIGN same-sex marriage" and foreign might only mean: marriages completed in other EU countries, although I am not sure of that...but if no one else makes a point of it... I wont do it either Sander000 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Bermuda's law has been repealed, AFAICT. The law has been blocked, but the block has been stayed. So it should be med. blue for right now, and if an appeal is filed, it may well be med. blue until a ruling is made. Bermuda may require updating the map frequently, but that's not an uncommon situation w current events.

The wording for dark grey was purposefully ambiguous because there was disagreement among govts as to whether the IACHR ruling was binding or advisory. I just made it a bit more ambiguous. Your wording wouldn't work for the countries under the IACHR ruling, and personally I don't think the difference is important enough for us to code -- the eventual color may differ (dk blue vs dk green), but in both cases there are likely to be recalcitrant countries who will refuse to abide by the ruling, in which case there isn't much difference at all. But if they do abide, the difference will be clear in the final color. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "Country subject to an international court ruling to recognize foreign or domestic same-sex marriage". How's that? But that's secondary to updating the map -- the EUCJ ruling is potentially game-changing for those EU countries that have no intent to allow SSM on their own. Really, they might should be green, just as with Mexico since their SC ruling, I just don't know how long it will take them to fall in line. (And, really, do we know that all Mexican states have fallen in line?) Kwamikagami (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)