Talk:Civil union
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civil union Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell User:MiszaBot/config Template:Broken anchors
Too much focus on same-sex unions, including same-sex marriage
This is an article about civil unions. I feel that there should be more focus on civil unions and not same-sex unions.
For example the map of Europe with the status recognition of same-sex unions is not relevant here. I would instead use a map of Europe with recognition of civil unions, split by:
- for same-sex couples only
- for different-sex couples only (if any)
- for both same-sex and different-sex couples
Similarly, the whole section about "List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions" is relevant in an article about same-sex unions, not in article about civil unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditsonis (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. In many jurisdictions, civil unions or civil partnerships are only open to homosexuals, and this can be regarded as disriminatory (I've Template:Diff a paragraph referencing the UK Supreme Court's decision of June 2018, saying so). But while they are, it is not surprising the majority of the content is about same-sex unions: that just reflects reality. It would seem the right article title per WP:COMMONNAME.
- The whole of the list section should probably be deleted: it is covered in the main Same-sex union legislation article. That may address the balance a bit. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree Nlivataye (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I added some information about European countries and civil union for heterosexual couples, hope there comes more! :) EiersalatmitGurken (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC))
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Civil union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906190642/http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%5Chtm%5CLawFiles%5C2012%2FL-04-2012.htm to http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%5Chtm%5CLawFiles%5C2012%2FL-04-2012.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The West
Only concentrated in the Western world and completely ignores Africa and Asia Nlivataye (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Nlivataye That's because there aren't civil unions in Asia and Africa, save a few examples which do get mentioned, e.g. Taiwan.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Africa
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Asia 96.236.18.93 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
