Talk:Same-sex marriage in Washington (state)

message: An initiative has been filed in Washington (I-958) that indirectly challenges the Andersen ruling by making procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The sponsors are to pass it and that the Court strikes it down, thereby striking down much of the reasoning which led to declaring the defense of marriage act valid. When would it be appropriate to update the article? Once details are released or only after the measure is certified for the ballot? TechBear 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, looks like it's actually I-957, but I can't find anything on it. I-958 is something about "relating to life safety and protection of property." I do, however, enjoy the proposal of an initiative not yet numbered: "Relating to the prohibition of proposing dangerous initiative & referendum measures." Gave me a chuckle. Anyway, as for inclusion, I would wait a bit. Has it been the subject of a couple non-trivial publications? News sources? It might be ok to mention it in a sentence or two now, though. (I can't believe this initiative isn't being proposed by Tim Eyman!). Thanks for the heads up. --Rkitko 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is it appropriate to mention initiatives in the article? 

message: How come nobody has mentioned Washington SB 1247 in this article?
Washington SB 1247 
Summary: This bill would expand the existing domestic partner registry to provide registered domestic partners with access to the rights and responsibilities provided to spouses under state law. 
Status: This bill passed the Senate March 10, 2009 by a 30-18 vote. It passed the House April 15, 2009 by a 62-35 vote. The bill now heads to Gov. Christine Gregoire’s desk. 
Full Text: Read the full text of this bill. 
Rating: Support 
Action: Washington residents should use HRC’s Online Action Center to contact their state senator and representative to ask him or her to support this bill. 
http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/domestic_partners/12528.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.146.40 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple: it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Washington has Jim Crow "domestic partnerships," which are not the same thing at all. Anyway, the bill is mentioned, just not by name. TechBear (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington SB 1247  

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Capital punishment in Washington which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I took some photos outside and uploaded them to Commons. There are also many more photos of actual weddings inside City Hall, including various dignitaries, at City of Seattle photostream, licensed CC-by. I uploaded one, of Dan Savage & the mayor, but there are many more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedding photos 

message: Someone just moved this article from "Same-sex marriage in Washington state" to "Same-sex marriage in Washington (state)". Parentheticals are generally used on Wikipedia titles to disambiguate two things with the same fixed name or term, such as discerning Kansas-the-band from Kansas-the-state. As "Same-sex marriage in Washington state" is not a fixed term but rather a descriptive title, the parenthetical should not be used. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Nat. I hope you're doing well. Have a nice day. Teammm  20:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed, which is why I moved it to Same-sex marriage in Washington State, the capitalized State being, I believe, correct. Since we cannot keep the article at Same-sex marriage in Washington since we also have Same-sex marriage in Washington D.C., we do have to disambiguate, but WP:NATURAL disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical - you're correct. Rkitko (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ach, I was looking at day-old recent changes, which makes them less-recent. My apologies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There why not create a proposal to rename Washington (state) to Washington State. TBrandley (T • C  • B) 01:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate movement of article 

message: Please show me any map, any legal document, that describes it as such.
"Access Washington Home" Below the header graphic is the text "Welcome to the state of Washington"
"Washington Governor Jay Inslee"
"Government of Washington"
Not a single one of these maps label it as "Washington state"
I could go on. The best you're gonna find is something like "Washington State Legislature", which is the state legislature for Washington.
I can't rule out the possibility of a few screwballs existing, but a quick spitballing of Wikipedia biographies for persons born here, none of them use "Washington state." So Wikipedia doesn't even use it.
I found this article when I went to correct an inbound link and discovered to my horror that the link wasn't piped. This article's title is an atrocity. I could give a damn that a few million IDIOTS don't know that "Washington" is a state and "Washington, D.C." is a city. "Washington state" is a university in Pullman. There is NOTHING in existence simply known as "Washington state." Call things what they are called, for goodness' sake. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been debated many times on many articles related to Washington, if you’ll check the various talk pages. It’s unlikely that your arguments will get much attention if you continue to use the incorrect definitions of words like atrocity, or horror. Calling anyone an idiot and yelling in all caps will probably get you ignored and eventually blocked from editing. Washington (state) might be slightly better than Washington state, but it’s two parentheses. Please be civil. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any geographic or political entity called "Washington state" ? Very simple question. The article's title refers to a place that does not exist. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

text: If you've ever referred to New York City, then you are as vile a perpetrator of atrocities as anyone who's ever referred to "Washington State", and you should turn yourself over to a tribunal for trial and sentencing forthwith. Largoplazo (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington is called Washington state in several dictionaries, and in many books, news articles, and even maps. We have verifiable evidence that it is, sometimes, called that. What you’ve been pestering Wikipedia about since, apparently, 2013, is not that it isn’t called Washington state. It’s that that is not its official name. Wikipedia does indeed often call things by names other than their official names. Bill Clinton, for example. These articles are written in a serious tone, without irony, but they are not legal documents. Language other than the most strict legal terminology is often used, and often preferable to legalese. It’s highly unlikely consensus on this basic fact will change. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  My state is not called "Washington state" 

message: (did you upgrade since 2018?), I could have sworn I'd written MOS:US in my first edit summary. Anyway, as you wrote, it states "that U.S. is retained in American articles when already established". It wasn't already established. You changed it to "U.S." where it wasn't already established. As of this edit of yours, within the past week, neither "US" nor "U.S." appeared. You incorrectly added a sentence with "U.S.". So you should change it to "US", and leave the other "US" alone. Something that you yourself put there less than a week ago against the preferred treatment isn't exactly what one thinks of when one thinks of a practice as having been "established" in an article. Largoplazo (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  US/U.S.