File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.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.

Can this file be renamed "Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg"?

This discussion belongs on Commons as that is what determines the name, and this is dependent on the processes of Commons, not the English Wikipedia. Going on, the most consistent and proper title for this file would be "Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg". However, it is used on over 100 pages on various wikis (108 pages as of my last check, and this includes talk pages). The most uses of this file on any single wiki is 22 uses on the English Wikipedia. All of this is excluding Commons itself. I can move the file, and I want to move the file, but I am not sure I can actually just go ahead and make this decision. So if anyone can, please tell me whether I can move this file, and please don't just do it yourself if I am allowed to. Dustin (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be necessary. This is just a file name of an image, which 99+% of the time is not seen by readers. Lots of images have weird filenames, especially when there are several versions of the same image. Even when people do see the filename, I doubt that they will be bothered by a lack of a hyphen or an abbreviation. I suggest putting your perfectionist efforts into something more visible. -- Sam (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sam: This is not perfectionism, and I so not appreciate the accusation. There are legitimate reasons for having correct and consistent filenames, and this name is not consistent with other files (for Colorado, Brazil, etc.), and this complicates the usage of the file elsewhere. Perhaps you should look around Commons to know what I mean when I talk about consistency. What reason have you spend time trying to prevent me from doing something I would and could do without an issue?

Brief: I do not understand why you would come here just to say why I shouldn't correct the file name when the actual move would be of little trouble to me and I am willing to do so. Dustin (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not say you "shouldn't", and I'll admit that I don't know all that much about the ins and outs of naming files on Commons. So please educate me on what those legitimate reasons are. It just seemed to me that the filenames of images are rarely seen so why bother. No insinuations or accusations intended. -- Sam (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone cares. It's not worth this much discussion. If you want to move it, go ahead and move it. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Guam

Why is Guam highlighted as recognizing same-sex marriage? It does not. It has been discussed in the main SSM in the US page. It should be reverted back to grey.

Guam legalized SSM as a result of a court ruling in early June. http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/06/05/guam-becomes-first-us-territory-to-recognize-gay-marriage Awyow (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Alabama should still be purple

The original ruling (Sercy) has not been stayed and still technically applies statewide. The stayed class action ruling was only on the Strange case. Also, probate judges technically can begin issuing marriage licenses now, they're just not required to. Add to this the fact that the state is recognizing same-sex marriages from out-of-state. -Stefan

Since this statement is not signed and dated, I am noting for the record that it was posted in May, well before today's events, and is no longer true. Smartyllama (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't everything be blue?

Doesn't the decision of 23JUN2015 render it legal in all states?--Adam in MO [Talk] 03:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the OP means the decision of June 26th, but I have the same question: shouldn't everything in the image be blue now? Brucejoel99 (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo and Brucejoel99: It would be best for you to take a look at the file talk page on the English Wikipedia. Dustin (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's time for Louisiana to be changed to blue. While the governor himself is resisting the order, the government and statewide Clerks of Court Association are complying, and that Association actually recommended on 6/29 that individual parishes begin implementation immediately (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/at_least_35_of_64_louisiana_pa.html#incart_m-rpt-1) EDIT: this is the same combination of resistance and implementation as in Texas currently (governor says Clerks can refuse, but Clerks have all decided to begin issuing). --Bobster687 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I AGREE Louisiana should be blue. Difbobatl (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Map no longer just states

Since we didn't even bother using this map on WP-en any more (what's the point of solid blue with the single exception of American Samoa?), I've changed the scope to all jurisdictions. So, Navajo, Chickasaw, counties in Alabama, etc. The tribal govts is probably not complete, and same may need to be changed grey to purple or vice versa, due to poor RS coverage, but hopefully having the map in the article again will encourage a search for more RS's.

If you pull up the full-size map, you'll get hover-over pop-ups with the names of the various polities.

I'm afraid I messed up someone's lovelily efficient coding. I didn't know how to apply it to the new areas, and so used a completely different system. Not elegant, but it works. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Tribal govts

Some of these may be misclassified, due to lack of data. Yakama, for example, does not allow SSM, but there is nothing about not accepting state marriages. Calls to the res have not been fruitful. I've erred on the side of caution, only classifying res as not allowing SSM at all when there is a source to that effect. I've included res with 'a man and a woman' wording in their laws, but not 'husband and wife', because it's not clear what that means -- what if those terms are not gendered in the language? what if two men meet the reqs by saying they are 'husband and wife'? That might require case-by-case rulings, which for the most part haven't happened. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)