Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 30

Redundant table of UN member states
A redundant table of UN states was added, and the owner is edit-warring over it. (Per BOLD, they should be initiating the discussion here, but they are apparently not willing to collaborate.) Is it worth having at all? The problem is that one of the listed UN member states (the Kingdom of the Netherlands) does not yet have SSM in all jurisdictions, supposedly a criterion for the table, and another (the Kingdom of Denmark) did not have full SSM until 5 years after the date given. This is why we assign flags to countries and not UN member states in the main table. Another problem is that the number of "jurisdictions" with SSM is far higher than the number given. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * To repeat the suggestion I made on my own Talk: I think the problem comes with the piece of framing text that cites "UN member states", when what the table actually includes is countries that are home to UN member states. So perhaps the framing text could be adjusted accordingly, if there is consensus to do so? I believe readers would benefit from (and the sources support) a table less confusing than the main one that includes all national and subnational units together. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the table as useful, and I favor removal. UN membership is not a particularly relevant lens through which to view SSM legalization. If we keep it, we do need to state the inclusion and chronology criteria clearly, as I (weakly) agree with kwami's points on Denmark and the Netherlands. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, despite fencing a bit with kwami on this, I am not sure I see this table as particularly necessary--and given the fraught jurisdictional issues, probably best to leave it aside.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine for it to be removed if there is a consensus for removal. However - as stated above - I think a "national jurisdiction" table would be a service to our readers, if one can be appropriately managed and sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually in favor of a short table, though not necessarily immediately after the main table, where it's redundant. However, I object to giving different countries different treatment. If it's a table of countries that are "home to UN member states", then we should have England on the table, as the home of the UK (England doesn't even have its own parliament: the English parliament is the UK parliament, similar to the Netherlands and Denmark). But I suspect that no matter how we approach this, someone's going to object that it's an abomination. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, why not just "member states" without Netherlands or Denmark? Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My goal would be to have a table that answers more questions for readers than it raises. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, people already have. Has anyone tried to put together the equivalent table for the EU? That would offer a much tighter framework than the UN... Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Restricting it to the EU would solve the Netherlands, since the other constituent countries are not in the EU. But why would we want an EU table here?
 * You want a table that doesn't raise questions, but we also need a table that is factually accurate. That's more important.
 * We can have a table that lists each UN state by first jurisdiction. That would leave Nd and Dk where they are, but we'd need to change the UK, US, Can, Br, China and Mexico. (China is a UN member state, and one of its UN-recognized provinces has SSM.)
 * Or we could list each UN state by final jurisdiction, in which case we need to move Dk and remove Nd.
 * Or we could do both, with both a start date and a completion date. That would be more informative IMO.
 * Even if we can agree on a consistent approach to the list, I don't think it belongs here. It might go above the main table, but it's weird to have a long text followed by a short summary. Professional writing nearly always goes in the other direction: summary followed by details. So IMO it should either be moved up or moved somewhere else that could use a summary treatment. — kwami (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, a sortable table with last jurisdiction and first jurisdiction would answer my concerns, would preempt ASTONISHment from readers, and wouldn't have appreciably more rows than the current "UN states" table (though it would have more columns). How about that? Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That solves my factual concerns. I still don't care for the location of the table, but that's minor. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Eventually I think the long table should go to the Timeline article, but we ought to agree on the short table first. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to such a table, but I do worry we're creating a bit of a Rube Goldberg machine where none is needed.  That said, happy to go wherever consensus leads.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've addressed reducing the size of the table before, but never gotten anywhere with it.
 * The full table is rather long for this article, which is already too long IMO. Splitting off extended material is IMO a good thing. The problem with the table is that a lot of people (including myself) use it as a quick reference, so removing it would be annoying. If we can create a shorter table that serves that function, with the long table in the timeline article, then perhaps we can streamline this article a bit.
 * I'll give the short table a shot with start and completion dates for each country. Then I'd suggest waiting a while, so see if that works, before moving the long table. I'd want the long table retained, though, as a summary of the timeline, and not simply disappeared into it. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that approach. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How's that? The Chinese flag is a bit tricky, but no worse that N.Ireland. I still need to format the dates so they sort properly, but otherwise I think I'm done. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work kwami, and I hesitate to bring this up, but 'China' here while technically correct, strikes me as...disingenuous, for lack of a better term. If I'm alone in that, I won't complain, but just felt the need to express my unease.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is disingenuous! I'd go further and say it's stupid. But it's also the political reality.
 * According to Taipei, the country is "China", not "Taiwan". That's a legal fiction, of course, but the UN concurs and only recognizes "China". In our maps of UN member states, Taiwan is included as a province of China. It's not a non-member state. In a way, it's like the competing governments of Venezuela. Whichever one you recognize, you recognize them as the govt of Venezuela, not of a partition of Venezuela.
 * So yes we could call it "Taiwan", but then we would need to delete it because Taiwan is not a UN member state. But then there is a UN member state, China, that has partly legalized SSM and so belongs in the list. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, myself, but because of that legal fiction (which both the ROC and PRC maintain), we can't include Taiwan as either a UN member state or as a non-member state. We can only include it if we abandon the UN framework. Which might be the way to go, but I didn't want to mess with that without consensus. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am willing to bet all of us here are aware of the strange status of Taiwan qua China. But I guess my fear is that someone less familiar might be a bit led astray by that entry.  By my lights, I guess I would leave it out entirely, but again, this is more a note of unease than an objection, strictly speaking.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But according to the UN, China has partly recognized SSM. I'm fine with conceding to reality and calling it "Taiwan", but for that we'd need to remove mention of the UN. And if we remove the UN framework, we might get into arguments over what a "country" is in other cases. We certainly went around in circles with N. Ireland.
 * But again, perhaps we should remove the UN framework. Taiwan is certainly notable as the first country in Asia to legalize, so I wouldn't want to leave it out. Not if we're going to move the long table to the timeline article. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, changing UN member state to 'sovereign state' (de facto or not) would be better imo.  Tewdar 
 * Apologies if I have my indenting wrong! My proposal, such as it is, would simply be to excise China/Taiwan from the UN table as a matter of editorial discretion.  Taiwan would still be in the timeline, and the infobox, and mentioned in the article (appropriately so), but there would be less possibility for confusion.  Again, just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If we move the long table to the timeline article, then that means we'd removing Taiwan altogether. I strongly feel that it should be included. It is a country, regardless of UN membership.
 * I'd be fine with listing "sovereign states" and renaming the country "Taiwan", if we think that won't cause problems with what "sovereign" means. Why don't I go ahead and do that, because I suspect saying that "China" has SSM is going to cause no end of disputes. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * indenting, Lol, can't be worse than mine! Yeah, go ahead and change it, either to 'sovereign state', or perhaps 'country'?  Tewdar   21:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, changed to "sovereign states".
 * "Country" is a whole 'nother can of worms. How do you establish whether a polity is a "country"? Is the Cherokee Nation one? Bermuda?
 * That may be a way forward if people want to go there, but I think this caused problems in the past. If the Netherlands and Denmark are "countries", well so is England, and people objected to removing the UK from the list. If the UK should be included as a sovereign state, then the Netherlands should not, because the sovereign state is the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I think giving a range of dates to fudge the issue is probably the best we can do if we want to be factually accurate. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, we'd just be using 'country' as a synonym for 'sovereign state', so England wouldn't count, but the United Kingdom would. I imagine people would complain less about 'country' than they would about 'sovereignty', but I may be wrong.  Tewdar   21:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the past we've had a problem with definitions. There are 4 "constituent countries" in the UK, 4 in the K. Netherlands, 3 in the K. Denmark, and 3 in the Realm of NZ. So we get into problems with consistency. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Why not do something like this, the 2 tables are already fucking massive so it won't make things any bigger:

etc...

I assume the citations are already present in the article, somewhere...  Tewdar  20:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I must confess I didn't really read the above discussion, so it's quite possible that someone already suggested this...  Tewdar   20:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I notice people want to keep a chronological ordering too. Never mind then.   Tewdar   20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We're thinking about removing the long table, if the short one proves adequate. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What, so the United Kingdom row, for example, tells me that the first = 2014 and last = 2020, but doesn't tell me which constituent nation it was? Hmm... I think I prefer my proposal 😁 Also, I have to agree that the Taiwan entry is a bit peculiar.  Tewdar   21:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to include the constituent polities, then you're back to the long table. The point is to try to create a shorter table that can stand in for it so we can move it out and so shorten the article a bit. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It would at least merge two tables into one... but I get your point. There are rather a lot of juristictions.  Tewdar   21:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I'm the one who edited the new table yesterday. Apologies for popping up here only now, no intent of running away from the discussion. To everyone's information: the table is copied and pasted from other wiki pages (abortion law and capital punishment abolition) and summarises quite effectively the number of countries who have a vote at the UN (and hence could influence or pass resolutions, sign treaties and conventions, and so on). This approach has the benefit, IMHO, of decoupling the subnational jurisdictions and provide a quick overview to readers who want to know, eg. 'when did the US pass same-sex marriage?'. The straight answer here is clearly 2015 as an effect of Roe v Wade. Superscript notes can provide further clarifications to those situations that require a few caveats (Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, US, UK, Brazil), much like the notes used in the side bar template. I think this table should not be seen as an alternative to the main table, but rather as a compact way to show how many countries (allow me to simplify) in the world have passed SSM and what the momentum is for such a change. My ask is that, whatever the consensus is here, we strive to keep a 'per year' approach to edit the table: it adds information to have the yearly country counter as well as the total counter (same approach used in other civil rights pages to represent the global momentum, as I mentioned above). Best, ciao! Finedelledanze (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries on the timing, Finedelledanze--real life comes for us all. And I wouldn't be my annoying self if I didn't point out that when you say Roe v. Wade, I think you made a slight slip for Obergefell v. Hodges (which is certainly understandable given current political happenings!).  That said, I absolutely understand your argument for inclusion here.  To me, it very much depends on what we do with the large timeline table.  If it is ultimately kept in this article, then to me, the U.N. list seems redundant and less useful.  If we end up moving the timeline, then I think the argument for inclusion becomes much stronger.  So, that's essentially my take, but I will leave it to the wiser heads here to make those determinations.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Obergefell, absolutely! Thanks for pointing out! ;) Finedelledanze (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to have a 'per year' list when it can take several years to pass SSM. Mexico is on 12 years and counting. But we can at least make it sortable by year. — kwami (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, there doesn't seem to be a problem with this apart from ppl objecting to having 2 tables. I'll go ahead and remove the long table to the timeline article. If this is too soon, please go ahead and revert me. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

public opinion
The south africa box should be green in the public opinion polls section 🙂 Nayar Ihale Malog (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

notable countries list
Under the list of notable countries, Cuba is listed as the first Caribbean nation to have SSM, but didn't Colombia get SSM in 2016? And Costa Rica in 2020? 2A0D:6FC0:B36:3700:14CE:BC84:AA69:1BE3 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. I'd rather point out that Cuba is the first Marxist-Leninist or socialist state to pass SSM. This is the most noteworthy feature. All the other states are liberal democracies. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Columbia isn't Caribbean. Puerto Rico and the USVI were first, but not independent, and not by their own choice.
 * Cuba wasn't the first socialist state. Portugal was. — kwami (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cuba is not a liberal democracy, the other 33 states are:
 * ''Cuba has had a socialist political system since 1959 based on the "one state – one party" principle. Cuba is constitutionally defined as a Marxist–Leninist socialist state guided in part by the political ideas of Karl Marx, one of the fathers of historical materialism, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin.
 * Portugal operates as a unitary multi-party semi-presidential representative democratic republic.'' Finedelledanze (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And?
 * You could also say that Cuba is the first non-democratic state. But not that it's the first socialist state. — kwami (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be incorrect for two reasons. 1) in 2010 Portugal was ruled by a party that has the word 'socialist' in its name, so much so as Spain was in 2005 - these are social democratic parties that belong to the Party of European Socialists. Just because the governing party was left-wing, this does not mean that the political system is socialist; 2) Socialist states are not liberal democracies, but I think it would be inappropriate to label them as non democratic tout court. In socialist states democratic decision-making exists to some extent within one party (like in China), just like Iran's system that has democratic features (elections, parliament, courts) but with strong limitations that don't qualify it as a liberal democracy. The most neutral definition is 'socialist' or 'marxist-leninist' Finedelledanze (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Portugal is defined as a socialist state in its constitution. 'Marxist-Leninist' would be fine. Or just 'Caribbean'. Though there are just 4 Marxist-Leninist states in the world, so I don't know how noteworthy that would be. — kwami (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please indicate the reference in the Portuguese Constitution? Just checked in the preamble and first articles but can't find such a definition.
 * Article 1. Portuguese Republic Portugal shall be a sovereign Republic, based on the dignity of the human person and the will of the people and committed to building a free, just and solidary society. Article 2. Democratic state based on the rule of law The Portuguese Republic shall be a democratic state based on the rule of law, the sovereignty of the people, plural democratic expression and organisation, respect for and the guarantee of the effective implementation of fundamental rights and freedoms, and the separation and interdependence of powers, all with a view to achieving economic, social and cultural democracy and deepening participatory democracy. Finedelledanze (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the preamble: The Constituent Assembly affirms the Portuguese people's decision to ... open the way to socialist society.
 * That's aspirational, but so is most socialism. — kwami (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Whatever the aspiration, Portugal is a well-established liberal democracy with an OECD market economy and is an EU member.. that doesn't fit the definition of socialist state. I'd rather label Cuba as socialist, or marxist-leninist. I'm personally fine with non-democratic, but I guess we would be biased. 'Caribbean' would also be correct, but Cuba is noteworthy for being the first country out of the Western bloc to pass SSM. That was quite a news! Finedelledanze (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no problem with Marxist-Leninist (not that I find it particularly noteworthy), but if Portugal claims to be a socialist state, or a future socialist state, 'socialist' may be problematic.
 * But as you say, Cuba is arguably to be the first "non-Western" country with SSM, though finding a good term for that could be difficult. Switzerland, Ireland and Mexico are not in the Western Bloc as WP defines the term. Also I've tried in the past to say that SSM is so far a phenomenon of "Western" countries, only to be reverted, so the same problems may crop up with claiming that Cuba is the first "non-Western" country, unless we have a coherent UN or NATO definition for what that means. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point. What is notable about Cuba is not so much being the first Caribbean country to pass SSM (there are other non-independent countries, territories, islands that had SSM legalised first), but to be the first non-democratic or non-western (meant as liberal democratic world) country. I think 'socialist' would be in line with the Wikipedia definition. 'marxist-lenist' could be less ambiguous and more precise, although could come across more obscure for some readers. I'm in favour of one of these two terms. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Kwami, how about first communist state? I think this would be unambiguous enough. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about these things, but from what I understand it's not actually a communist state, though that's what we call it in the US. That might be a bit pedantic, so if no-one has a problem with it, i supposed it's fine. but it is clearly a marxist-leninist state, so there should be no factual problem with that label. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the news coverage is that it's not a liberal democracy, why not just say that it's the first that's not a liberal democracy? — kwami (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, would this sound good in English?
 * 🇨🇺 Cuba: The first country that is not a liberal democracy to legalize same-sex marriage (2022)
 * My preference would be for the following though, because a reader could wonder 'if this is not a liberal democracy, what is it then?'
 * 🇨🇺 Cuba: The first communist country to legalize same-sex marriage (2022)
 * Finedelledanze (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, Kwami, communist and marxist-leninist states are used as synonyms on Wikipedia (as per political philosophy), so it is not incorrect to use the word 'communist'. It's not American biased language against Cuba. Finedelledanze (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was biased, I said it was technically inaccurate, which according to wp it is. but it's also common usage. there aren't many communist countries in the world [just 4], so imo that's not particularly notable. but there are lots of countries that aren't liberal dems, so that seems more relevant for the rest of the world. — kwami (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt Cuba is a precedent for other Communist states or for other non-liberal dems for that matter. I suspect it's instead following the precedent of other Latin states. — kwami (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly influenced by other spanish-speaking countries, still notable as first dictatorship in the world to pass SSM to put it bluntly. For supporters of LGBT rights like I am, it is a good sign that these rights are recognised more and more as human rights worldwide, rather than a Western or American cultural product. Cuba is not a liberal democracy and sets an important precedent for activists in China too, showing that these rights are not incompatible with socialist states. Socialist or communist states can be four, but still China is one of these - as is populous Vietnam -, making about 1 human out of 5 living in a communist country. See how Cuba's move didnt go unnoticed in China (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3194582/how-chinese-internet-saw-cubas-vote-gay-marriage-surrogacy), and they clearly mention Cuba as first socialist nation to pass SSM. Some others argue that this move was just pinkwashing to improve the regime's outlook - the decision to hold a referendum in a country without fair elections was unprecedented, and nobody can be really sure if the referendum was a fair vote. So, I'd say all of this makes Cuba very notable from a political and international point of view. I'll post on the page, then you all please feel free to edit directly on the page if the wording is not right for you. Thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll propose 'first one-party state' as this is a neutral and undisputable description of these countries' constitutions and gets us out of the weeds of socialist/communist/liberal democracy. Hope this can work out fine for all. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * our articles communist state and socialist state contradict each other. i don't know which is the better usage. — kwami (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course Colombia is Caribbean! And so is Costa Rica. The Caribbean isn't limited to the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:B36:3700:75B9:C409:FF8:9C64 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Then the first Caribbean state with SSM was Mexico, and the second was the US. Maybe we could word it "Caribbean island country". — kwami (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

New short table
Please find below here a proposal for discussion. As stated above, I think this would have the benefit of showing legalisation momentum (as hinted by the counter/per year approach), while also providing important heads-ups and clarifications through superscript notes that become readable simply by moving the pointer over the superscript. The approach is used in other civil rights articles, and IMHO I find it very effective. Other special cases like Taiwan and Mexico can be referenced and explained in the text introducing the table. Thoughts? PS: On a side note, I'm in favour of listing the UK as legalising since 2014 for three reasons: 1) there is no UK parliament, there is only Westminster; 2) coincidentally in the same year SSM entered into force also in Scotland; 3) the constitutional structure of kingdoms and realms is not equivalent to federal states like the US or Mexico that are made up by states that are historically and functionally equal and share a common federal parliament with limited jurisdiction over marriage. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding notes here for everyone's benefit (I see them in the code page, but cannot view them in the talk page): Preview of references Performed in the Netherlands proper, including the Caribbean Netherlands. Registered in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed. Legalised in Denmark proper in 2012. Later legalised also in the two other constituent countries of the Danish Realm: Greenland in 2016, the Faroe Islands in 2017. Nationwide. First legalised at state level in Alagoas in 2012. Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands In England and Wales and in Scotland. Later legalised by Northern Ireland in 2020. Performed also in eight of the fourteen British Overseas Territories Recognised nationwide. First legalised at state level in the Mexican Federal District in 2010 and now performed in all states except for Guerrero, Mexico, Tabasco and Tamaulipas. Nationwide. First legalised at state level in Massachusetts in 2004. Neither performed nor recognized in American Samoa or some tribal nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finedelledanze (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If we're going to go by the first date of legalization, then we need to add Mexico and move up the US, Brazil and Canada. Also, there's no reason to leave out Taiwan. This is a visual chart, so relegating basic info to fn's is misleading. If you want a verbal chart, then we need to remove the flags; we could just make a bulleted yearly list without table formatting.
 * this would have the benefit of showing legalisation momentum -- it might, if you were to show years with no countries legalizing, but by omitting those you've abandoned any attempt to show momentum. So there's no benefit to this format and quite a substantial detriment, because, as we've already seen, it will lead to edit-wars over dates and the definition of a 'country'.
 * Also, you seem to want to push the OR idea that's there's a particular kind of momentum involved. Once you add the zero years and correct for the European bias, there isn't an obvious acceleration of countries adopting SSM. Rather, it seems to be fairly steady, once you average out yearly fluctuation. It's not appropriate to format the table in such a way as to push an unsubstantiated OR claim like that. — kwami (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Here I add the zero years, and try to correct the bias problem that European countries above were defined more leniently than non-European countries:

Once this is done, there doesn't appear to be any obvious acceleration of momentum. There might be a gradual uptick, but still a lot of yearly fluctuation, with no legalization in 2018 or 2021, for example. Or, it could be that there was a peak in 2010–2017, with a decrease in momentum since then, esp. if we don't add in Taiwan! Anyway, we shouldn't be using tables to try to illustrate an OR observation that we can't justify in the text. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kwami, thank you a lot for the reordering. My comments point by point below here for general discussion:
 * - Inclusion of Taiwan: Ok, although I think that a note (or a reference in the intro text) should explain that this is a partially recognised country;
 * - 'Zero years': No strong feelings here but I think that less is more, and adding empty rows does not bring much value. As mentioned, this is a common format used also in other wikipedia pages.
 * - 'European bias': here I'll make a strong pushback. I don't think there is a bias at work. The US, Brazil and Mexico are federal countries. We can say that they have legalised SSM only when there is a federal obligation (either from the federal parliament or supreme court) that generates legal effects across the country. Then we can argue on more inclusive or restrictive interpretations, coming to the inclusion or exclusion of Mexico where the federal mandate is for SSM only to be recognised nationwide (since 2010) but not performed. But SSM in the US and Brazil only has had nationwide legal effects since 2015 and 2013 respectively. Let's come to Europe (and Oceania), that is to the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand and the UK. Let's take a look at the first two, which are in a similar situation. The two kingdoms don't have a federal parliament above the parliament of metropolitan NL and DK: the metropolitan parliament (the one passing SSM in 2001 and 2012 respectively) is the highest elective body of these kingdoms: I think a footnote is enough to explain the status of SSM in the Dutch Caribbean, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. For NZ the situation is simpler because Niue and Cook Islands are states in free association with NZ, while Tokelau is a dependency: there is no mistake in saying that whatever constitutes NZ has enjoyed SSM since 2013. And finally the UK, this is tricky. For Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories the situations is clear: like in NZ, these are not part of the UK. This leaves us with just one big question: did the UK legalise SSM in 2014 (when it entered into force in England and Wales and, coincidentally through a different law, in Scotland) or in 2020 (when the same UK parliament also forced it on Northern Ireland)? I'd be personally in favor of 2014, using the criterion of "highest elective body": actually England and Wales's parliament is also the UK's parliament. But in other pages the criterion 'latest constituent jurisdiction to legalise' has been used (eg. in Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe) and I wouldn't contest much either. Finedelledanze (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO, if we can say that the UK has SSM when only England and Wales do, then we can say that Canada does when only Ontario and Quebec do. "Highest legislative body" is a bit of a fiction if it doesn't change anything on the ground for half of the country. Even more so for Mexico, where the SC ruling didn't change or establish any national law. Nothing was legalized in 2015 except perhaps for the single state in question (I don't remember). This is exactly why we want to list by both criteria -- so as to not push a particular interpretation like this, when the criteria are so subjective. We could just as easily argue that we should go by UN-recognized states, in which case the Netherlands still doesn't have SSM. When we get such different results depending on which criteria we use, then the results are not robust and IMO we shouldn't be pushing them.
 * Your only argument for a single-criterion ordering is that it allows us to lump countries together by year, but what it the benefit of doing that? You said that it enables us to show readers the increasing momentum of SSM legislation, but it doesn't, and even if we thought it did, that would be OR, our pushing a certain conception of reality without RS support. The fact that it doesn't matter if we remove the years without any legislation shows that 'momentum' is completely irrelevant -- zero years would be crucial to demonstrate that. — kwami (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - When Mexico City passed SSM in 2010, in the same year Mexico's Supreme Court affirmed that, not only the federal government but also the other Mexican states were compelled to recognise SSM performed in Mexico City with all the relative rights and duties of the spouses. On the contrary, when Ontario legalised it in 2002 (or Massachusetts in 2004 in the US, or Alagoas in Brazil in 2012) nor Canada's federal government or the other provinces had any legal obligations to recognise these marriages that were actually valid only locally.
 * - Allow me to say that the UK is an 'odd country' with no written constitution and many practices rooted in tradition (think of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands that are a direct possession of the King!). By pure coincidence in 2014 SSM entered into force not only in England and Wales but also in Scotland. To be fair, this amounts to 97% of the UK's population (Northern Ireland had to wait until 2020) and not 'half of the population on the ground' as you say. Again, no strong feelings if consensus is for 2020: I just find it a bit pedantic, considering that a footnote or superscript note could just clarify the exception as well.
 * - Showing momentum (or no momentum at all) is politically neutral I think, it is just descriptive. It shows 'the waves' with which a social and political phenomenon spreads around the world (if ever) or in some regions. Think of legalization of abortion on demand, that has been dormant for many years and gained momentum over the last few years, mostly in Latin America, Catholic Europe and Eastern Asia.
 * - 'Objective criteria' do not really exist in social sciences. This is why laws can be overturned (like it happened with Roe v Wade in the US). But while we strive for clarity and precision and edit-war on the definition of dependencies, tribal nations and overseas territories, we should not overlook precedents and applications from everyday life and facts, such as membership of international organisations, sport international tournaments and, last but not least, common media representation, including usage on Wikipedia itself. These inevitably imperfect descriptions of reality are what allow us to define a common standard. For the sake of this table, I would stick with sovereign states as listed here, which would also bring to the inclusion of Taiwan. I don't think this is equivalent to pushing a particular criterion: is about choosing a criterion in a simple, transparent and reasoned way. This is why IMO it makes sense to show two tables: a short one with a list of sovereign states prioritising simplicity and a longer one with a thorough list of all the jurisdictions, at national and subnational level, prioritising precision (either here on the main page or on the Timeline sub-page, as it was agreed a few days ago). Finedelledanze (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2 out of 4 member states is indeed half the country.
 * I'm not saying showing momentum is not politically neutral. I'm saying that claiming momentum without RS's is OR and does not belong on WP. Since that's the only reason for lumping the countries by year, you have no valid reason to do it. It's a convenient format, easy to scan, but in this case causes problems. For instance, in your opinion now, Mexico legalized SSM in 2010. But in your table, you claimed Mexico legalized it in 2015. And the consensus here has been that Mexico as a nation has not yet legalized it and so shouldn't be in the table at all. See the problem? We've got 3 possible years just for that one country, plus the question over whether it belongs in the table or not. By giving both start and end dates, we avoid these problems. The only cost is that we can't lump the countries by year, which means we can't show an OR POV that we shouldn't be attempting to show in the first place. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think notes can provide clarifications where appropriate - this is basically the same approach agreedfor the sidebar long time ago, when editors had similar discussion on inclusion/exclusion of countries. If Mexico is in the side bar with a footnote, I don't see why it should not be in the table with the same (or a similar) footnote.
 * Apologies for the confusion on Mexico's year of legalisation. After editing the table, as I made more research later on, I then realised that already in 2010 the Supreme Court mandated all states to recognise SSMs performed in Mexico City. A note could read "Recognised nationwide but not performed in all states. First legalised in the Mexican Federal District in 2010 and now performed in all states except for Guerrero, Mexico, Tabasco and Tamaulipas". The 2015 court judgement that you mentioned in your table was an advisory statement ('jurisprudential thesis') that set a precedent but did not produce any legal effects to strike down all the state-level SSM bans.
 * My suggestion, again, is let's try to be simple here like in the side bar. Precision on first or final jurisdictions can be found in each country's SSM page or in the longer table that you've moved to the Timeline page. Finedelledanze (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:90%; background:white; text-align:center"

! style=width:1em | Year legalized ! Countries ! style=width:1em | CpY ! style=width:1em | CC
 * - style=line-height:1.2
 * 2001 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 1
 * 2003 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 2
 * 2005 || style=text-align:left |  || 2 || 4
 * 2006 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 5
 * 2009 || style=text-align:left |  || 2 || 7
 * 2010 || style=text-align:left |    || 4 || 11
 * 2012 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 12
 * 2013 || style=text-align:left |    || 4 || 16
 * 2014 || style=text-align:left |  || 1 || 17
 * 2015 || style=text-align:left |   || 3 || 20
 * 2016 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 21
 * 2017 || style=text-align:left |    || 4 || 25
 * 2019 || style=text-align:left |   || 3 || 28
 * 2020 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 29
 * 2022 || style=text-align:left |   || 3 || 32
 * 2023 || style=text-align:left |  (pending) || 1 || 33
 * }
 * 2014 || style=text-align:left |  || 1 || 17
 * 2015 || style=text-align:left |   || 3 || 20
 * 2016 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 21
 * 2017 || style=text-align:left |    || 4 || 25
 * 2019 || style=text-align:left |   || 3 || 28
 * 2020 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 29
 * 2022 || style=text-align:left |   || 3 || 32
 * 2023 || style=text-align:left |  (pending) || 1 || 33
 * }
 * 2020 || style=text-align:left | || 1 || 29
 * 2022 || style=text-align:left |   || 3 || 32
 * 2023 || style=text-align:left |  (pending) || 1 || 33
 * }
 * 2023 || style=text-align:left |  (pending) || 1 || 33
 * }
 * }

That's a highly misleading table and would only be acceptable if we removed the dates and the chronological order, in which case it would just be the infobox plus flags. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've argued enough on the merits of having BOTH a summarised table for countries (akin to the SSM sidebar and equal to other tables across Wikipedia pages) and a long-list that meticulously lists all the single jurisdictions. The fact that you find this misleading has more to do with your own mindset. Search on Google "when did the UK pass SSM?" and you'll find the answer is 2014, because this is the common knowledge, without all the sophisms that you are making, just to make one example. But let's park the discussion here and see if there can be other editors who can throw in their opinions. Best, ciao. Finedelledanze (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly I preferred the previous version with one large table. It did the job, and I don't see the need for a redundant little table. Can't we just go back to how the page had been for years?--Aréat (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hold the opposite view; I think the short table (with two columns) is more usable by our readers, while all the information from the long table is retained in the Timeline article where it belongs. Newimpartial (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's more convenient for me to have the long table here. But although I personally find it inconvenient in its new location, I have to agree that for the average user it was probably overkill to have it here. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't been a part of the original discussion, but I just randomly happened to notice the change on the page. I have to say that I am strongly in support of reverting back to the old table. It was extremely clear and displayed all the necessary information without making it confusing. It was also perfect to receive accurate updates about new jurisdictions, which may otherwise be difficult to find. It has been a part of the page for literally years, so I really hope we can go back to it. --Ratherous (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also been using it to keep track of events for years, and am not yet used to watching the timeline article instead. And sure, if that's what people want, there's no problem with moving the long table back here. But don't you think that for most readers it would be overkill? This article is already awfully long. I'd think that the percentage of readers like us who use this article as a news source is going to be a small fraction of the total, though I have no way to really know that. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As detailed as it was, I don't think it added any unnecessary info to the article. It had a very nicely organized, cleanly displayed timeline of jurisdictions legalizing marriage equality. It made it very easy to navigate the general LGBT wiki topics as well. I think we're risking the removal of very important details by replacing this table, especially considering the fact that with SSM specifically, there are so many instances where specific jurisdictions made the legalization before national recognition. --Ratherous (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus for the new table, I also would revert to the old table on the main page. Maybe the new summarised table can be inserted on the Timeline page. Finedelledanze (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is to be a Timeline page at all (which there has been for some time), I don't see any policy-compliant reason the long table should be here and the short table should be there. Surely if there are editors using Wikipedia to keep up with recent developments, it would be more appropriate to use the Timeline page for that purpose so that this article can take a more encyclopaedic view of its topic? Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * How about this approach? This is basically the old table with countries and subnational jurisdictions listed in two separate columns, which IMO makes the summary more readable. The country counter keeps track of the total number of countries transparently and automatically. Superscript notes are added so as to guide the reader with more precision wherever ambiguities may arise. Information is not lost regarding subnational jurisdictions (which may be less accessible in the Timeline page). This shall meet everybody's concerns, I hope. If you like it, feel free to tweak it on column width or disposition. Ciao! Finedelledanze (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I definitely support this more than what's currently on the page, although I still think the original table should be reinstated. --Ratherous (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll move the table to the main page. Shall further comments arise, we'll come back here to discuss. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed the middle columns, which are trivia. Also corrected Netherlands and Denmark: the sovereign states did not legalize on those dates, only the constituent countries. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As for "sovereign", if metripolitan Denmark and Netherlands are sovereign, then so are Greenland and the Faroes, so they also belong in the left-side column. And we should remove the flags of England, Wales and Scotland, since they are not sovereign. Or we could go with UN member states + Taiwan. — kwami (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to confuse 'kingdoms' with 'countries' as well as 'subnational jurisdictions' with 'dependent jurisdictions' (subnational j's are a part of a whole; dependent j's are separate but hierarchically reporting to a sovereign jurisdiction).
 * Kingdoms can be made up by multiple constituent countries: some are sovereign and some are not, as some of the latter's powers (eg. foreign affairs, currency, military) are the sole prerogative of the sovereign country within the kingdom. It is therefore correct to list the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark and the UK as 'sovereign countries': they are the sovereign country within their respective kingdoms and realms, there is no higher parliament or court within their realms; their parliaments have therefore external legal representation at the UN and other international organisations.
 * The second column lists 'subnational jurisdictions' (like the states of the federal US, Brazil and Mexico) and 'dependencies'. Countries that are part of a kingdom, but are not sovereign, nor independent are defined 'dependent' or 'dependencies' in international public law.
 * To make things more complicated, the UK is a sovereign country which is made up by 4 nations: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are treated as 'subnational jurisdictions', like if the UK had a federal structure (I think that for the purpose of this article we can deal with this approximation).
 * Hope this clarifies things. Finedelledanze (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand all of that. But if the Netherlands is a realm consisting of 4 constituent countries, and Denmark of 3, then we need to list either the UN state in the left column, or the constituent countries. Not half and half. The highest-level state governed by the Dutch parliament, under which the others are dependent, does not have SSM.
 * Also, you have no consensus to add this table. When a WP:BOLD edit is reverted in an edit, you need to leave it and talk it to talk, rather than edit-warring over it. It's up to you to get consensus, not the other way around. So far you have one half-hearted vote in favour. Unlike the short table, which was worked out by several people to consensus. — kwami (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the short table that is the bold move which is being reverted here, and need to be discussed. It was barely discussed a few days by a handful of users, and it's now clear from the discussion and the number of short tables modification proposals that it lack a consensus. It's been done too hastily. The previous table should be readded until the discussion on what to replace it with gather a consensus. I'm not against a short table per se, but the current one with a line per country is unsustenable on the long term. It lead to a lenghty table as well, but an empty one. Imagine the size it will take in ten years. --Aréat (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Kwami, On the first point: the Netherlands is a sovereign country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The kingdom is not a state 'above' or higher than the Netherlands - as you seem to assume -, it is the form of government or relation that links 1 sovereign country (the Netherlands) with its dependencies. Not only would it be wrong to say differently, but would also be pedantic, since it is inconsistent with content present in Wikipedia and common representation in the media. When you say 33 states have SSM you include the Netherlands, you don't refer to the kingdom of the NL.
 * Second point: I posted the table after 3 days from the proposal and after incorporating the previous feedbacks of a discussion that has been going on for a couple of weeks now, so I didn't mean to start an edit war. To be honest, though, it seems like you keep reverting to a table that does not meet consensus at all, as many other editors have pointed out.
 * Brief, guys, all around Wikipedia there is no problem in listing sovereign countries as distinct from subnational jurisdictions and dependencies. We have now worked on a table that shows both, and allows readers to easily count/list the 33/34 sovereign countries that are mentioned in the article. It is clear that this approach does not meet Kwami's favour. Can we say though that it is an acceptable compromise to overcome the main concern with the old, long table (putting sovereign countries and subnational/dependent jurisdcitions together, it lost somehow in clarity)? Finedelledanze (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As a few others have said. Hardly "many". And they've been asking for the old table back, not this new one. If the consensus for the short table is no longer tenable, fine, but then we should go back to the original long table, not this which has no consensus at all.
 * If the metropolitan Netherlands is a sovereign state because its parliament is simultaneously the parliament of the kingdom, then the same can be said of England in the UK, with Scotland and N.Ireland as English dependencies.
 * Our article on the K. Neth says, The four parts of the Kingdom ... are constituent countries and participate on a basis of equality as partners in the Kingdom. If they're equal partners, then we need to treat them as such. If not, then the Neth were lying in the memorandum they sent to the UN.
 * Similarly, The Kingdom of Denmark is ... the three autonomous legal systems of Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, united under its monarch. The Kingdom of Denmark is a unitary sovereign state. If that's true, then the sovereign state did not get SSM until 2017. If that's not true, then we need to correct our description in the Danish Realm article. — kwami (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As suggested by Aréat, I also am in favour of reverting to the old long table as long as we don't agree on how to improve it (if ever).
 * Wikipedia says here that the definition and usage of the word "country" is flexible and has changed over time. The Economist wrote in 2010 that "any attempt to find a clear definition of a country soon runs into a thicket of exceptions and anomalies." I couldn't agree more.
 * @KwamikagamiKwami, we clearly disagree on some definitions. I find your stance overly formalistic, and I think it disregards common practice and conventions used in everyday language and elsewhere in Wikipedia (examples: Abortion_law, Capital punishment by country, Legality of cannabis, List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent, Prostitution in Europe).
 * However, we all agree that these 'exceptions to the rule' (eg. NL, UK, DK, NZ) are noteworthy and should be made known to the reader. I'm of the idea that this can be done through footonotes or superscripts, as done elsewhere in Wikipedia (or even on this page, eg. side bar).
 * I would like to see a table (like the latest version above for discussion) that clearly singles out the 33 sovereign countries that are mentioned in the article. I don't want readers to go and count them for themselves. I think that would be valuable support for students, journalists and other content producers who can retrieve this information from Wikipedia.
 * '''My question for the editors' community is therefore: can we publish the table above, with one column for sovereign countries and one for subnational jurisdictions and dependencies, making the old long table more reader-friendly?
 * And can we manage the few exceptions in the table with the use of notes? Can we be flexible and list the Netherlands as the first sovereign country in the world to pass SSM or shall we tilt towards formalism and say that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not passed SSM yet?'''
 * PS
 * If it were true equality, it would be called Kingdom of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. Just like we have the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The name itself suggests that these kingdoms are defined on a mainland sovereign state with overseas territories, all having different titles and nomenclatures, but sharing one common trait: they lack independence, they are not sovereign countries.
 * In the UK all 4 british nations send their MPs to Westminster like in a unitary state but 3 of these countries (Scotland, Wales and NI) also have some special autonomies and their own devolved powers. England has no parliament of its own but has reps from the other nations taking decisions in Westminster about England. This is also the case in DK (with 2 reps from Greenland and Faroe) but not the case in the NL or NZ. Denmark's Folketing - the only parliament of the kingdom of Denmark - passed SSM in 2012. But for this to have effects in GL and FI, concurring legislation had to be passed locally. One could argue this line of reasoning is applicable for NL too.
 * But I thought we had sorted out all these matters many years ago, when we developed this page and adopted the 'flag code' for countries in the table (when it was way shorter and more reader-friendly) and the 'footnotes' for countries in the side bar. Why are we mired in this again? Finedelledanze (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we did settle the flags. Greenland and the Faroes got flags, as did England, Wales and Scotland, and as would Aruba, Curacao and St Maartin if they passed SSM. So by the precedent of using a flag code for 'countries', all of those should be in the left column. And the fact that the law of the higher polity does not apply to them indicates that they are indeed sovereign, at least in this matter. (Though I suppose Wales is not. And I don't think it would actually be useful to move all those flags to the left.)
 * Agreed, it is a bit of a fiction that the Danish and Dutch realms are composed of equal partners. But the UK isn't composed of equal partners either, and we don't list "England" as the country getting SSM in 2014. It's hard to be consistent when the polities aren't perfectly comparable. At least, I'd think we'd want to move the UK up to 2016 to be consistent, but then what of Canada, the US, and Brazil? If you can get married in one state in those countries, but through reciprocity other states recognize that marriage, isn't that approx. equivalent to Mexico?
 * My problem is that when we list 'Netherlands' and 'Denmark' under 'sovereign countries', people might think we mean the UN member states. I'm not sure a footnote that we don't mean what we appear to mean is sufficient. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * meanwhile, I corrected the labels as 'sovereign countries' and 'subnational jurisdictions and dependencies' allow us to be more accurate. By differentiating countries from sovereign countries, you are basically able to leave in the right column all the coutnries who are constituent countries of a sovereign state, that is eg. the 4 British nations (subnational jurisdictions), the Bitish Overseas territories, the Crown dependencies, the Dutch Caribbean special municipalities (subnational), Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, Greenland, Faroe (constitutent countries - not sovereign - or dependencies). The UK - indeed, a sovereign country - would then be listed in 2020 after SSM passage in Northern Ireland (like in the page Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe) and with a note warning that SSM was already legal in the other 3 countries of Britain since 2014. As we saw, this would restrict the approximation to Denmark and NL, who could be listed either right (with a formalistic interpretation) or left with a superscript note (more in line with common knowledge - and this is the option I'm in favour of). By the way, other than Mexico's case, I'm not aware of recognition reciprocity either across states or at federal level in Canada, Brazil and US before federal legislation was passed (Canada) or supreme court rulings struck down state bans. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, am I the only one who find the "CpY" and "CC" columns not user friendly? You basically have to select them first to know what it mean. Seem to me a better system would have the column readable or more guessable. For example : or What do you think ?--Aréat (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd remove them as trivia. I don't see that they add anything to the article. I meant to remove them from the table above, as Finedelledanze and I seem to agree on that much, but was called away for a few hours. I'll do that now. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have them, but no strong feelings here. If you have a look at two tables above, when you pass your mose over the column labels 'CpY' and 'CC', the full text appears with 'Countries per year' and 'Cumulative countries' Finedelledanze (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

So, the new table is highly divisive and never reached a consensus in the first place, isntantly prompting discussion as to how to change it. Let's go back to the pre-bold move, and talk here on how to make a new table with a consensus.--Aréat (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If what you mean is move the old table from the Timeline page to the main page, I agree. But then please let us have a conversation on how to better differentiate sovereign countries from subnational jurisdictions and dependencies. As the number of countries (and jurisdictions) has risen considerably over time, the old table has become messy. Finedelledanze (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not opposed to discussion. It's precisely because the old table was changed without enough discussion on what to replace it with that we ended up with this situation. I'm going to place the old table back, then.--Aréat (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)