Template talk:Civil union

Layout

This template looks terrible. It is too wide and takes over pages that only contain a small amount of information. I question whether it even needs to be on every "Civil union in ..." page. I suggest that it is removed from all these pages and only used on the Civil union page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Maryland?

I notice that there's a (red) link to Civil_unions_in_Maryland in this template. I'm assuming that this is because of the legislation passed in 2005 by the Maryland state legislature, though in my opinion that doesn't qualify as a full civil union -- it was mostly concerned with hospital visitation rights (or at least that was the aspect most covered in the media) and probably should be put in the domestic partnership category instead. That question is moot, though, as Governor Ehrlich vetoed the law. Thus, I'm removing the MD link. --Jfruh 02:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Add link to Gay rights by country?

I am proposing to add Gay rights by country to the bottom section. Anybody disagree? Wuzzy 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium?

I noticed that this template says that civil unions were recognised in Belgium before the legalisation of same-sex marriages. This is not entirely true because they are still recognised today (though I'm not sure whether civil union is the appropriate term).--Ganchelkas 11:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the Netherlands. - René van Buuren 14:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire (USA)

Please wait for the signing of the Act please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember that it has NOT been signed yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember civil unions, etc like with other legislation - Has to pass "two" houses and be "signed" into the statutes!!!!!!!

Not law yet - please wait to include this in the US states that legally recognize same-sex relationships until such time as the bill is signed. Thanks ZueJay (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purto Rico

Who and Why is Purto Rico in the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.61.189 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Propose new template format

I'd like to propose a new version of the template. The proposal radically alters the template, so we should discuss it first. The template I'd like us to consider is slightly wider but significantly shorter. It also matches more the Template:SSM currently in use. The proposed new template also drops some information that currently seem to overwhelm articles and the template itself. Keep in mind these are for navigation, not to convey all knowledge of the subject. So, ~~here's what I was thinking:~~ Changed it to what I was thinking.

What do ya think?

ZueJay (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Maybe trim the language at Template:SSM to match (e.g. "Performed nationwide in" --> "Performed nationwide"). Fireplace 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Tweaked the SSM template as suggested. Have gone ahead and changed the civil unions template - no one has registered a complaint (or tried to rv it) yet. Discussion, suggestions, etc. always welcome. ZueJay (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Australia

In all states and Territories (jurisdictions) domestic partnerships legislation is avaliable please include all of then - Not just Tasmania. by the way the federal government is doing nothing (consevatives) LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (COUNCILS) AND STATE AND TERRITORY GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT lgbt RIGHTS!