File talk:Date of same-sex marriage legalization.svg

States with more than one legalization date
Utah should be striped to indicate it legalized same-sex marriage during 2013 (for the period lasting from December 20, 2013 to January 6, 2014). I support 's edits: CA is the only state with two final SSM legalizations, and it will probably be the only one. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: the same should go for California. Prcc27 02:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection. But if we're going with this scheme, Michigan and Arkansas need to be colored [striped], not just given a footnote. 0nlyth3truth 20:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support striping Michigan and Arkansas. Prcc27 (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Double striping any other state than CA is downright stupid. No other state had two SSM legalizations. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia's Timeline
I propose using one of the following two sources: one, two, as the sole authority to ascertain when jurisdictions legalized same-sex marriage, in order to outsource possible edit conflicts. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated legend
I like your proposal to make the legend more fine-grained. Two comments though: 1) given the sheer volume of states that have legalized SSM this year and very likely in 2015/2016, it probably does not make sense to the partition the color scheme strictly year-by-year; 2) given that countrywide SSM is likely by 2015 or 2016, if we're going year-by-year, the center of the gradient should probably be pushed back closer to 2011 rather than 2012/2013. One objection: it has been reached by consensus perviously that this map only depicts occasions of legalization that were final. The only state with two of these is California and it will probably be the only one. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

1.) You don't know it will be legalized countrywide in 2015. 1.) Expect that's not true about California. Utah in December 2013 and those marriages reminded in effect to this day. (US federal government recognized them) Several other states where in this position (Wisconsin, Indiana, etc.) but all of those happened in 2014. I'm gonna re-edit it again. AHC300 (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * objected to coloring Utah this way previously. If he would like to weigh in again, we can see what the new consensus is. Meanwhile, I'm going to center the gradient, and also provide a version with green instead of red in the reverts. If TGA would like to comment on green vs. red, that would be welcome as well. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's best if the colors in the SVG file are in the form #xxyyzz for compatibility reasons. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Striping states where judges (inappropriately) did not stay their rulings that they knew would be appealed does not merit striping. Striping in these cases is absolutely asinine. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'm reverting to the original per Reverting. I'm still working on a version that has red instead of green. I'll add that in the reverts and we can discuss a new consensus. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Blue to green, blue to red, and only blue gradients added in the reverts. Please comment. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am partial to the blue and green. This is because the gradient with only blue is too fine-grained to make direct comparisons from map to legend, and because the gradient with red is aesthetically lacking. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thegreyanomaly: It really doesn't matter if you think it was stupid not to appeal. It happened.  History puts gay marriage being legal in Utah on December 20, 2013.  Fact.  Personal feelings =/= cold hard facts.
 * 0nlyth3truth: What was wrong with my edit? I kept the blue color (and updated it with better coloring), I kept the strips on Florida.  What did I do wrong? AHC300 (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You failed to try to achieve consensus for your edits, after it was made clear that was necessary given that you weren't the only individual trying to curate this file. Also, my apologies for being MIA; Thanksgiving weekend was a nice break.
 * I agree with TGA because, as was seen with Michigan for example, that some couples got married does not amount to SSM being legal in those states. When the 6th circuit overturned the ruling in MI, they invalidated the marriages performed. That this potential exists is the reason TGA and I think this information is misleading and better not represented.
 * And as I said above, I am partial to the blue and green. This is because the gradient with only blue is too fine-grained to make direct comparisons from map to legend, and because the gradient with red is aesthetically lacking. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)