The former color was "intention to legalize [same-sex marriage]" brown, rather than status quo-loving gray.
Speaking of intention to legalize countries, wasn't the Nepalese Court order to do so dismissed? Does the government have power to do this, as the Vietnam unregistered cohabitation that seems to have been shelved, after all, or is it just endless staying like in the Taiwan's upcoming bill and much of the American legal issues dismissing anti-marriage equality state laws? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should Idaho be changed to blue?
I have seen many news sources seeing that Idaho have released a stay after court refused it per:
Thailand had legalizing gay marriage on its agenda before its coup last year, since legalization there is no longer in the imminent future, should the map be reflecting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteaaadav (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since Sinawatra no longer has the power to push the SSM bill thru, and the junta's bill isn't for marriage, I'm changing Thailand to grey. (Leaving Nepal, though, since that was a Supreme Court order.) — kwami (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989: On this map we have a color with the description "Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize". Chile qualifies as "intention to legalize" so it should be colored yellow. Even in a country like Estonia where they actually signed the law, it is colored yellow. It is also very impolite to revert without an explanation. Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting extremely tired of you. Every single time there is a debate to change the maps (especially the United States map), you're the stickler the fights to hold back. You're the user who brings the issue to AN/U on Commons when you don't get your way to try and force admins there to protect the image. You're the one who insists we have to wait down to the very millisecond the law is signed into effect. Instead of fighting everyone, try and mellow out. The President campaigned on the issue, she will sign, it has passed, there is no point in waiting. And no, Chile does not qualify for "intention to legalize", they are far beyond that step. They have passed a bill, the only thing we are waiting on is a signature which is purely a formality in this situation because we 100% know that she will sign it. Fry1989eh?16:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with Fry1989. The author of the bill is the President herself, there is no reason to wait for a formality that is only ceremonial. The chances that she does not sign the bill are zero. There is no intention to legalize, just the legislation hasn't come to effect yet. Kallme (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on this map is to color a jurisdiction yellow until the law actually goes into effect. That's why Finland is yellow even though same-sex marriage was legalized. Prcc27 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is relevant is that multiple users have suggested you to cool off about being so strict about getting it down to the very instant of signing, especially considering that the signing of the bill is an absolute certainty. Not only have you refused, you have accused me of vandalism which you know this is not. And what is worse, this isn't the first time you have had this sort of fight, only last week you brought the matter up on Commons' AN asking admins to protect one of the maps. Fry1989eh?21:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the president is going to sign the bill violates WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, even when the bill is signed and becomes law- Chile will remain yellow. Coloring Chile blue before the law goes into effect would be confusing because same-sex couples will think that they can get a civil union even though they can't until the law takes effect. That's the whole point of the yellow color, and that's why Estonia (a country that has actually had their bill signed) is colored that way. And yes, you are a vandal. Continuously changing a map without discussion, explanation, or consensus is clearly vandalism. If you make a bold edit and I revert it, we are supposed to discuss it per WP:BRD. Prcc27 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, every person and their brother knows she will sign it, this was her campaign promise issue. I owe no discussion when 4 users have all reverted you and you either edit war your war around all of us or go whining to the admin protection page. You are the problem user here, acting like you have some superior position over these maps. Fry1989eh?21:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter if she does, this map will still reflect yellow until the law actually goes into effect. Coloring Chile blue while leaving Estonia yellow would be very inconsistent. Btw this is not a democracy! Prcc27 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, you do not have a consensus at this time. "Not a democracy" is the cry of every user when they don't get their way, you have zero support for your forcefulness at this time and I have reported you for edit warring. Fry1989eh?21:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: You just made the map inconsistent! Chile and Estonia both either legalized civil unions or are about to legalize them but they are colored different colors! Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kallme: It doesn't matter if there is a 100% chance that Civil Unions are going to be legal in Chile and Estonia, the yellow color is to distinction between countries with same-sex unions and countries that will have same-sex unions in the near future. The distinction is important because if Chile or Estonia is colored blue, people will think that they can currently get a civil union which isn't the case. Prcc27 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Precision123 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)--Precision123 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)=== RFC: Chile ===
How should we color Chile? Chile passed a bill that would legalize civil unions and is awaiting signature from the president. Chile is currently colored blue for "Civil unions", but Estonia: a country that already legalized civil unions and has had their bill signed is colored yellow for "Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize" (Civil Unions won't be available in Estonia until 2016). Should Chile be colored blue for Civil Unions or does Chile qualify as "Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize"? Prcc27 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: According to the users in the above section, yes. But she hasn't signed it yet. I just realized that both theses discussions should probably be in the same section. Or maybe this could be a subsection..? I don't know how I should fix it! Prcc27 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Full civil unions blue. There is no intention to legalise, civil unions have been legalised, the bill has been passed. Whether it is signed tonight or in a week doesn't matter, it will be, everybody knows it will be and there is no question of it. Fry1989eh?04:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's pretend that what you said is true. Even if civil unions were legalized in Chile, it still qualifies as yellow because the wording for that color is "Government/court legalized..." That is why Estonia is yellow. It makes no sense to have a country that hasn't had their bill signed blue while having a country that had their civil union bill signed yellow. This map is inconsistent. Prcc27 (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. Yellow appears to refer to gay marriage as does the dark blue, neither of which appears appropriate if I read the RfC's opening statement correctly. What is being discussed here are legalized civil unions which is not the same thing as gay marriage. And further, the bill has not been signed. The fact that it is expected to be is neither here nor there. Unless there is some other legal status I am unaware of (I don't follow the global gay marriage issue) I think the correct color should be whatever we use for "Same-sex unions not legally recognized" until that changes. It's quite late here and I am tired. So I may have misread something, and am open to correction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: The wording for the yellow color makes no reference to marriage. The wording for yellow is "Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize". Apparently the president says they'll sign the bill so that seems to qualify as "intention to legalize [civil unions]" to me... Prcc27 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense when you look at the map key. Civil unions, which is again what we are talking about here, is three spots from the bottom and five from the top. The title of the file is World Marriage Equality Laws. That clearly indicates that the map is grading countries in terms of how close they come to legally recognized gay marriage (dark blue). It makes zero sense to have Civil Unions as a very light blue three slots from the bottom of the key if your interpretation is correct. Yellow and dark blue clearly refer to gay marriage, not civil unions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, instead of simplifying the map or simply just stopping being such a strict person about us needing to wait to the instant the President signs the paper when we already know she will, you want to further complicate the map. Fry1989eh?16:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989: Please stop ignoring what I said. I'm against coloring Chile blue even when the law is signed. The law has to actually go into effect for me to support coloring any jurisdiction blue. The yellow and blue colors distinguish between same-sex marriage will (most likely) become legal and same-sex marriage is legal. If we color Chile blue, people will think same-sex couples can get a civil union which is absurd because the bill hasn't even been passed yet. Btw, a presidential signature is not a formality. The president could still reject the bill. Prcc27 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in support of scrapping the wait for the head of state to sign the law and instead following news sources by updating when the legislative arm passes the bill, not waiting on the formality of executive assent. So blue.Dralwik|Have a Chat17:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: So you think Estonia should be blue too? Estonia's bill was signed but the country is yellow. Btw, a presidential signature is not a formality. I'm pretty sure the president can reject the bill. Also, if those countries go blue then I guess Alabama and Finland will have to go dark blue. Are you suggesting we get rid of the entire yellow color..? Prcc27 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia blue too? Yes. As for the entire yellow color, no, I'm suggesting we leave yellow for countries working their way through a bill (like Thailand and where England/Wales was before final Parliamentary approval). As for the executive rejecting a bill, then we'd just turn the color back. Dralwik|Have a Chat21:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would the wording be for the yellow color? Seems to me we would be inconsistent since neither Chile nor Thailand have actually legalized anything. And what if the executive announces they will reject the bill but hasn't done so yet? Will the country still be blue since the legislators approved it? Is the Keystone Pipeline legal in The United States because the legislators approved it, or is it illegal merely because Obama vowed he would veto it? Prcc27 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new yellow legend would lose two words to be "Government/court announced intention to legalize." As for the executive announcing a veto, then it gets rolled back (or not changed to blue if it's announced before passage). It's not that complicated. Legislature working on it = yellow. Legislature passed, no veto = blue. Veto = stays yellow. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: And if the 11th Circuit and SCOTUS deny extending Alabama's stay but the stay still hasn't expired yet would Alabama immediately become dark blue? Prcc27 (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gather from this discussion that we are also at least implicitly talking about doing away with any distinction between civil union and actual marriage since everyone wants to color a country that is only going to recognize civil unions blue. If so that should be a separate RfC and we could eliminate all but three of the colors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chile should be colored as "Same-sex unions not legally recognized" for now. Wikipedia is not in the crystal ball business. If/when the law ACTUALLY CHANGES, then the map should be changed to reflect the new reality. In this case that would be the light blue representing legal recognition of same sex civil unions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So "intention to legalize" violates WP:CRYSTAL? If that's the case then yes, Chile should be colored as "same-sex unions not legally recognized" until the law is actually signed. Once the law is signed, the country should be colored for legalization until the law actually goes into effect. Prcc27 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a color code for intention to legalize civil unions. The yellow is second from the top, directly underneath the dark blue for legalized marriage which is what it pretty obviously is intended to refer to. I think that once the bill is signed it's safe to change the color on the map, unless there is a very long waiting period before the new law takes effect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I suggested adding a (lighter shade of) yellow color for civil unions. It is inconsistent to have a "transition" color for same-sex marriage but not civil unions, and it is inconsistent to color some jurisdictions that legalized civil unions blue while coloring the other ones with a long waiting period something else. The whole point of a transition color is to distinguish between countries with same-sex unions and countries that will have same-sex unions but don't currently offer them. Blue would be misleading because a Chilean or Estonian same-sex couple might think that they can get a civil union even though the law isn't in effect yet. Prcc27 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As @Prcc27: and @Ad Orientem: point out, the Chile discussion above has highlighted a problem. There is some confusion as to which colour a country should be if it intends to legalise same-sex civil unions: since the map is about marriages, all such countries should technically be coloured grey, for "same-sex unions not recognised", until such time as the bill becomes an act and acquires legal force.
It would be best to create a new colour for countries that intend to legalise same-sex unions (as opposed to same-sex marriages). Could someone arrange this? I don't know how to go about organising/fixing it.
I would, but I was blocked. Also, some people are arguing that Estonia and Finland should be light blue and dark blue respectively. Prcc27 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: Or we could color Estonia with a lighter shade of yellow that I suggested we could use for jurisdictions that legalize civil unions but haven't gone into effect yet... Same with Chile, Chile's bill wasn't even signed so why is it blue? Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For Vietnam, the government have abolished same sex marriage, (though the government does not recognize them or provide legal protections). Should this mean it's blue regardless even if the government does not recognize?
No. When we say "legal" in our articles, we're just being sloppy and mean recognized. In Vietnam, you won't go to jail for getting married, but you will still not be married in the eyes of the state. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated all of the relevant maps regarding Finland's marriage and adoption laws; including an added footnote on adoption maps to show laws that have not gone into effect. In addition, I edited the template and removed Finland from the civil union column. DO NOT revert any of these edits, I followed proper protocol and waited until the President signed the law, even though we all knew he pledged to do so. Also, I will leave the Marriage Equality map alone since we have decided to keep Estonia under intent to legalize as well.
Here is the source from Gaystarnews.com: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/finland-president-signs-gay-marriage-law-couples-will-have-wait-get-married-until-2017200215
That completes all of the sovereign Nordic countries, hopefully more regions of the world follow soon...
Chase1493 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
French Southern and Antarctic Lands
It's barely visible, but south-east od Madagascar lay Kerguelen Islands which is an overseas territory of France. Since France allowes marriage equality the territory should be in proper colour. 79.173.45.234 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose we could, but no-one lives there. (The rest of the territory violates international law, and so presumably should not be colored in regardless.) — kwami (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the referendum today expected to pass, once the results are announced which color does Ireland transition to? The beige for government intent to legalize, or since the Irish legislature has already passed the required bills does Ireland go right to marriage blue? Dralwik|Have a Chat12:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The general scheme of a bill to change a statutory laws was published by the government in March. It was not yet introduced. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See here for the General Scheme of the Marriage Bill 2015. This contains the statutory changes that the Government proposes to introduce if the referendum is passed. But I think it makes sense to already color Ireland blue if the referendum passes, since the constitution will specifically allow same-sex marriage, making the current statutes unconstitutional, strictly speaking. SPQRobin (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should be done once the amendment is signed by President. This will happen after the results are certified and no one challenge them in the Supreme Court (challenge could be filed within 7 days after provisional certification of the results). Ron 1987 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that Ireland's blue but what about Finland and Greenland? Legislation has still to be passed by government in Ireland, whereas laws pertained to the legality of same-sex marriage are already passed in Finland and Greenland. It's just details - other than the legality as such - that need to be cleared up. So, if Ireland is blue then why not Finland and Greenland too?2A02:AB88:6307:6D80:D156:7A7B:2CEB:9961 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico change?
Should the rest of Mexico (ie: the parts not already covered in blue) be changed to the yellow "Govt/court announced intention to legalise SSM" on the basis of this ruling? Seems very similar to the Brazil 2013 case. Mexico Supreme Court Opens Door to Gay Marriage Nationwide
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico's supreme court has ruled it is unconstitutional for Mexican states to bar same-sex marriages.
But the court's ruling is considered a "jurisprudential thesis" and does not invalidate any state laws, meaning gay couples denied the right to wed would have to turn to the courts individually. Given the ruling, judges and courts would have to approve same-sex marriages.
The high court ruled that any state law which considers the ultimate purpose of marriage to be "procreation, and or defines (marriage) as celebrated between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional."
Gay marriage is legal in some parts of Mexico, including Mexico City and the northern state of Coahuila.
The high court ruled that any state law which considers the ultimate purpose of marriage to be "procreation, and or defines (marriage) as celebrated between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional."
Gay marriage is legal in some parts of Mexico, including Mexico City and the northern state of Coahuila.
The ruling was delivered June 3, but didn't become known until this week.
Strongly Oppose: "Colors higher in the list override those lower down" and recognition green is higher on the list than legalization yellow. Prcc27 (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You're married if you got married in DF, but you can't just walk up to the counter in your state and get a marriage license. And the ruling does not establish a timetable or specific path for legalization. Recognition is therefore more relevant. But the news report does suggest that anyone seeking an amparo is nearly certain to not be denied, meaning it's almost certainly just a matter of time before all states are open to SSM. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to re-add the yellow "transition" colour, then we will first need to establish which states are actually not in compliance with Obergefell. The situation was changing pretty rapidly on Friday and I imagine it will be similar on Monday once courts and government offices open. - htonl (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added Kansas, Louisiana and Mississippi with the transition colour. I haven't touched the territories because I don't know which is which, and Wikipedia is not clear what their legal positions are. - htonl (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kansas being in "transition colour" but that will need to change to full blue soon as this article would indicate it will soon be only a matter of time before the state agencies recognise SSM in the state. Already each and every county in the state is performing or willing to perform same-sex marriages/provide licenses to same-sex couples - see the article for detail. Jono52795 (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same-sex marriage article for Israel says "The ruling specifies that a record made by the Administration of Border Crossings, Population and Immigration is a statistical record which does not constitute official recognition of same-sex marriage by the state." So unless someone can provide a source that same-sex marriages are recognized in Israel, it should be reduced from solid green to a green ring. Prcc27 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is sufficient for residency -- that is, SSM is recognized for the purpose of immigration, I believe. It seems that the 'for statistical purposes' wording may be a fudge. Probably more that what Armenia actually offers. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Intention?
What exactly is 'Intention to Legalize' and how are we supposed to measure it? Is it a Bill? a response to commentary? a manifesto?. Endrū Hejs (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we change it we'd have to figure out if the countries currently colored gold would qualify with the new wording. Is same-sex marriage legalized in Ireland? Are civil unions legalized in Italy? Prcc27 (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Ireland is legalized but not yet in effect because of the ref result, and Italy, Greece and Nepal should be grey until a legislature approves a Bill (if this hasn't already happened that is) as a minimum. The referendum in Ireland is a good example of why intention is so ambiguous, it can end up going either way. I think the purpose of intention to legalize was to show imminent changes in the law, but that we might have been a little over zealous in our updating. Maybe there is an expert in Italian of Greek politics that can contradict me? Unless it's a done deal why are we showing it? there are debates in many countries but it's not the purpose of this map to show them. Again, anyone correct me if I'm overstepping the mark please. Endrū Hejs (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it can't be called legalized but not in effect if the law required to change it hasn't been passed. Ireland is imminent legalization the same as I would call Finland and Estonia, but not the same as Italy and Greece where it's still up in the air. Endrū Hejs (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could leave them the colours they are and remover Italy, Greece and Nepal? The definition could be imminent legalization to avoid ambiguity. Endrū Hejs (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But in US Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands same-sex marriage is legal now, their color should be dark blue, and in Jersey civil unions are performed, its color should be light blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.190.54.35 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC) ;[reply]
I can't find a source in the news (but I don't read Danish) and the WP articles have not been updated since Oct 1. Reverting to 'pending' (gold). — kwami (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Faroe Islands should be yellow/gold as of April 29th. If signed by the danish parliament (likely), law will go into effect within the year. CRM28 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to change file name
I believe the name of this file should be changed to retain Wikipedia's neutrality on the issue. "Marriage equality" is a term used by proponents of same sex marriage. The neutral term is "Same-sex marriage", and as such Wikipedia should not be seen to advocate for a side in any way.
Shouldn't we shade in all the Antartican territories of countries where same-sex marriage is legal..? We should at least shade in the British one since it was officially legalized there. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should entirely ignore the Antarctic territorial claims, since the claims are not generally recognized by other countries (except in some cases the other claimant countries). - htonl (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet on the other map ISIS is recognized as a "legitimate" country. SMH. But, when in doubt how about we add a blue ring or a blue dot? If we aren't going to recognize the territories at all then we will need remove the British Antartican Territory from the template. Otherwise, we are being somewhat inconsistent. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing with the ISIS example, ISIS is fully shaded in on the World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression map. If we're saying those have similar recognition status, British Antarctica should be fully shaded in too. CRM28 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS, however, has actual control of territory (shifting though the boundaries may be) and residents who are actually subject to ISIS's "law". Whereas the BAT has no permanent residents, and Britain doesn't have actual control of the territory. If I understand the Antarctic Treaty regime correctly, people in Antarctica are generally subject to the laws of their home countries or the laws of the country that organised their expedition, not the law of the claimed territory they may be in. - htonl (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But AFAIK ISIS's territory isn't actually recognized by any country whereas UK's territory claim is recognized by at least themselves. As far as the UK's concerned a same-sex marriage performed in their Antartican territory is just as legal as one performed in their mainland. Same-sex marriage law is pretty much the only law we are concerned with. If ISIS gets full recognition as a legitimate jurisdiction I think Britain's Antartican territory deserves at least some recognition like a dot or a ring. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a ring or dot on the map would avoid the overlapping claim problem. But if we were to shade we could leave out the overlapping claims. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does Peru recognize marriages performed abroad after the recent court case? [1] Should the map be changed in some way to reflect this, or do we just watch for a change? CRM28 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Peru currently in gold? This does not appear to be accurate, though I could be misinformed. I have not read that they have had a court order (or legislation passed) that affects the entire nation. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per this source, could someone change Slovenia to dark blue? [1]
Additionally, I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. If I download the picture, change the color manually, and then replace this image with my modified version, is that the correct process? I would be happy to change future maps myself, but I wanted to ensure I did it correctly before messing up an image. Thanks! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michelangelo1992, go ahead! This picture is actually hosted on commons not en.wiki, but the process is indeed that. Do try not to mess it up, but if you do it can be reverted to a previous version without much issue. CMD (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nepal is colored in "Government/court legalized same-sex marriage but the law is not yet in effect" gold. As far as I know it is an unsourced claim. --Aréat (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rescinding my objection to green for Israel -- appears to have meaning on the ground, not just 'for statistical purposes' (probably more meaning than in Armenia). And yesterday's binding EUJC ruling, which is at least comparable to the IACHR ruling and IMO should be colored similarly, esp. since many of the states affected will probably drag their feet. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_same-sex_adoption_laws.svg){kind=link}
