text:
User talk:WarChild

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

Image copyright problem with Image:Wii_Classic_Controller.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wii_Classic_Controller.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You posted the Pokemon Diamond and Pearl logos right?
Where did you find the pic? Are there more screenshots of the game where you found the pic?

From: HOL, 4:46PM, May 16, 2006

Talk pages
Thanks, without a link, its not obvious for someone to find them. --Crossmr 02:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Korinku.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Korinku.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Naetoru.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Naetoru.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Tatetopusu.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Tatetopusu.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Zugaidosu.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Zugaidosu.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Masukippa.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Masukippa.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Minomutchi.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Minomutchi.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Spm-logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spm-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jump Ultimate Stars boxart.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jump Ultimate Stars boxart.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Final Fantasy XII DS Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Final Fantasy XII DS Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Super Princess Peach boxart.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Super Princess Peach boxart.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Malkinann 12:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Pinpuku.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Pinpuku.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pinpuku.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pinpuku.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn Box Art.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn Box Art.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FFIVDS.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:FFIVDS.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fire Emblem Goddess of the Dawn Japanese Boxart.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fire Emblem Goddess of the Dawn Japanese Boxart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that BetacommandBot taged Image:Fire Emblem Goddess of the Dawn Japanese Boxart.jpg for speedy deletion. I saw that you unploaded the image and figured you didn't want the image deleted, so I overhauled the image desciption page and marked it not orphan, for use as a citation of it's CERO rating, just like an image linked in Final Fantasy VII. I then added that citation to Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. You're welcome. ☺
 * By the way, I was wondering if you would please take a look at Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. We need some help doing some things like cutting down the list of characters, for example. I'd like to know if you can help, so please feel free to leave a message on my talkpage. Thanks! Taric25 07:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kyogre.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kyogre.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. βcommand 22:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fire Emblem Goddess of the Dawn Japanese Boxart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fire Emblem Goddess of the Dawn Japanese Boxart.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fire Emblem Goddess of the Dawn Japanese Boxart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fire Emblem Goddess of the Dawn Japanese Boxart.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Contra4Boxart.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Contra4Boxart.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Final Fantasy IV DS JP boxart.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Final Fantasy IV DS JP boxart.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GyakyutenSaiban4boxart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:GyakyutenSaiban4boxart.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Final Fantasy IV DS JP boxart.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Final Fantasy IV DS JP boxart.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tales of Phantasia GBA boxart.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tales of Phantasia GBA boxart.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen  06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tales of Innocence boxart.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tales of Innocence boxart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PokemonDPlogo.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:PokemonDPlogo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ShinjiDP.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:ShinjiDP.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image:DP-Hikari.png)
You've uploaded Image:Image:DP-Hikari.png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions.

Fire Emblem DS
Hello there. I see that you moved Fire Emblem DS to the apparent official version. I just want to know what source this was based on to justify it as an official title. Thanks. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  13:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DP-Hikari.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:DP-Hikari.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image uploads
You constantly upload fair use images to Wikipedia and neglect to add fair use rationales to any of them. If you continue to upload these images without fair use rationales, this account will be blocked from editing.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DragonQuest9logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:DragonQuest9logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Galactic Battle.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Galactic Battle.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Galactic Battle.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Galactic Battle.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Fire Emblem PoR Boxart.JPG
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Fire Emblem PoR Boxart.JPG

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:WarChild


text:
TriStar Pictures

TriStar Pictures, Inc. (spelled as Tri-Star until 1991) is an American film studio and production company that is a member of the Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group, part of the multinational conglomerate Sony Group Corporation. It is a corporate sibling of fellow Sony studio, Columbia Pictures.

TriStar Pictures was established on March 2, 1982, and founded by Victor Kaufman as Nova Pictures. On May 16, 1983, its name was changed to Tri-Star in order to avoid confusion with the PBS series Nova.

Originally a joint venture between Columbia Pictures, CBS, and HBO (the latter of which would later be owned by Paramount Pictures' parent company Viacom/Paramount Global and Warner Bros.' parent company Time Warner/Warner Bros. Discovery respectively), whose individual video units handled video, broadcast, and pay cable rights to its products, the company scored a number of box office hits with modestly-budgeted fare in the 1980s, as well as fortuitous distribution deals with the Producers Sales Organization, Carolco Pictures and the Taft Entertainment Group. It also expanded ambitiously throughout the decade with the acquisition of Loews Theatres and the formation of its own television arm. Among the various hits TriStar scored on its own during the decade were About Last Night, The Muppets Take Manhattan, Real Genius, Nothing in Common, Peggy Sue Got Married, The Principal, Look Who's Talking and Steel Magnolias.

On November 15, 1985, CBS dropped out of the joint venture, selling its stake to Columbia Pictures. HBO sold its shares to the same studio in 1986 in order to form HBO Pictures. On December 21, 1987, Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. was renamed Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc. following The Coca-Cola Company's merger of Tri-Star and Columbia to become "Columbia/Tri-Star", of which it owned 80% of its stock. In January 1988, CPE's stocks somewhat fell, and Coca-Cola decreased its shares in CPE to 49%. On April 13, 1988, the name of the company was reverted back to Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. On November 8, 1989, the Sony Corporation of Japan acquired Columbia Pictures Entertainment for $3.4 billion. On August 7, 1991, under Sony Pictures Entertainment, the hyphen was officially removed from the name of the studio. TriStar became the first new american major film studio since RKO Pictures which was founded in 1928.

During the 1990s, TriStar operated autonomously from Columbia. Although its products were mostly indistinguishable from that of its sister studio, it soon scored a string of hits at the box office with such films as Sleepless in Seattle, Philadelphia, The Mirror Has Two Faces, Jerry Maguire, As Good as It Gets, Bugsy and Jumanji, and it also scored a major video hit with Danny DeVito's Matilda. However, in 1998, the company fell on hard times following the box office disappointment of an ambitious remake of the Japanese monster film Godzilla, and Sony quickly responded by merging the studio with Columbia to form the Columbia TriStar Motion Pictures Group. The TriStar name was subsequently used by Sony on a very limited basis until 2004, when the company decided to turn the studio into a genre label that specialized in acquisitions. In 2015, Sony formed TriStar Productions as a vehicle for film and television productions. TriStar Pictures is currently being used as a vehicle for distribution of products from that new entity and other items from Sony Pictures, including titles from Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions.

TriStar Pictures is a member of the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

Early era (1982–1987)
The concept for Tri-Star Pictures can be traced to Victor Kaufman, a senior executive of Columbia Pictures (then a subsidiary of the Coca-Cola Company), who convinced Columbia, HBO, and CBS to share resources and split the ever-growing costs of making movies, leading to the creation of a new joint venture on March 2, 1982. On May 16, 1983, it was given the name Tri-Star Pictures (when the new company was formed and did not have an official name, the press used the code-name "Nova", but the name could not be obtained as it was being used as the title for the PBS science series). Tri-Star embarked on a 12 to 18 feature film slate per year, with a combined budget of $70 to $80 million and signed producer Walter Colbenz as vice president of the Tri-Star feature film studio, and signed initial development deals with director John Schlesinger and producers Jeffrey Walker and Michael Walker. Tri-Star's first project to roll out was The Muppets Take Manhattan.

On May 11, 1984, the studio's first produced film was released, The Natural starring Robert Redford. Tri-Star's first release, however, was the film, Where the Boys Are '84; a 1984 remake of the 1960 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) picture, Where the Boys Are that was co-distributed on behalf of ITC Entertainment after Universal rejected it; the film was a commercial flop.

Many of Tri-Star's productions were released on VHS by RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video, HBO/Cannon Video, or CBS/Fox Video. In addition, HBO owned exclusive cable distribution rights to the films, with broadcast television licenses going to CBS.

On May 8, 1984, Tri-Star Pictures secured North American distribution rights for the film Supergirl from Warner Bros., which enabled the film to be ready for distribution by Christmas 1984. On May 15, 1984, the studio hit big through its association with Carolco Pictures, with the release of Rambo: First Blood Part II, which eventually became a smash hit for the studio the following year. The company also partnered with Producers Sales Organization to handle theatrical distribution of the PSO titles, while both Tri-Star and Columbia struck a deal for film financing with Delphi Film Associates.

CBS dropped out of the Tri-Star venture in 1985. In 1986, HBO also dropped out of the venture and sold half of its shares to Columbia Pictures. Despite the changes in majority ownership, Tri-Star continued ambition-laden expansion plans. Chief among these plans was an expansion of their successful relationship with Carolco; a new extension of their pre-existing deal included Tri-Star gaining theatrical distribution rights to various Carolco projects, including Rambo III and Air America; Carolco retained all foreign, cable, television and videocassette rights. Taft/Barish Productions, a joint venture of Taft Broadcasting and Keith Barish Productions, signed a $200 million domestic distribution deal with Tri-Star (much like Carolco, Taft/Barish retained non-theatrical and ancillary distribution rights). Of the four films to emerge from this pact, only The Running Man would become a major success.

Another avenue of expansion was acquiring the storied Loews Theaters chain of cineplexes in October 1986 for $300 million, after a deal to purchase United Artists Theaters from Tele-Communications, Inc. did not come to fruition. At the time, Loews had 260 theaters in six states.

1987 was another ambitious year for Tri-Star; plans were in place to take Tri-Star from a relatively new, untested film company into a major film studio. Components of these plans included the formation of Tri-Star Television, and joining forces with Stephen J. Cannell Productions and Witt/Thomas/Harris Productions to create a television distribution company known as TeleVentures; they also proposed forming their own home video label, Tri-Star Video, taking over from the trio of distributors (RCA/Columbia, CBS/Fox and HBO/Cannon). A full-on international distribution arm was also in the planning stages. Another distribution deal was signed by Tri-Star and Hemdale Film Corporation in September 1987, but only one film, High Tide, would result from that deal.

Columbia Pictures Entertainment era (1987–1989)
However, Tri-Star's ambitions were curtailed by yet more change in ownership. The Coca-Cola Company boosted its stake in Tri-Star to 29.3% that September. That December, following several high-profile flops (including Ishtar), Coca-Cola began a plan to get out of the media industry; Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. was renamed as Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., and Coca-Cola sold its entertainment business to Tri-Star for $3.1 billion. Coca-Cola would then gradually reduce their holdings in the new company to 49%. Both studios continued to produce and distribute films under their separate names; a new Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. entity was created in April 1988.

As a result, Tri-Star's television division was consolidated into a single operating entity with Columbia/Embassy Television and Coca-Cola Television to form a new incarnation of Columbia Pictures Television. Merv Griffin Enterprises would continue to operate separately. Similarly, Tri-Star's nascent video division was absorbed into RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video.

Sony era (1989–present)
In 1989, Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc. was acquired by Japanese conglomerate Sony Corporation, which merged Columbia and Tri-Star, but continued to use the separate labels. On July 11, 1990, Tri-Star Pictures dissolved and sold its venture in TeleVentures to Stephen J. Cannell Productions and TeleVentures became Cannell Distribution Co. Most of the series and the Tri-Star film packages that were distributed by TeleVentures were transferred to Columbia Pictures Television Distribution. Sony Pictures Entertainment later revived TriStar Television as a television production banner in 1991 (by way of acquiring rights to shows from New World Television) and merged with its sister television studio Columbia Pictures Television (CPT) to form Columbia TriStar Television (CTT) on February 21, 1994. Both studios continued to operate separately under the CTT umbrella until TriStar folded in 1999 and CPT in 2001.

In addition to its own slate, TriStar was the theatrical distributor for many films produced by Carolco Pictures (the rights to only one of its films, Cliffhanger, has been retained by TriStar). TriStar also theatrically distributed some FilmDistrict movies. In 1992, TriStar, along with Japan Satellite Broadcasting signed an agreement with The IndieProd Company to distribute movies produced by IndieProd in order to fill the void left by Carolco, whose deal with TriStar was on the verge of expiring amid financial troubles.

Around summer 1998, SPE merged Columbia and TriStar to form the Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group, but just like Columbia Pictures Entertainment, both divisions continued producing and distributing films under their own names. Some of the movies slated to be released by TriStar, including Stepmom would go to its flagship label Columbia Pictures following the merger.

TriStar was relaunched on May 13, 2004, as a marketing and acquisitions unit that had a "particular emphasis on genre films". Screen Gems' executive vice president Valerie Van Galder was tapped to run the revived studio after being dormant. However, the release of its 2013 film Elysium represented the label's first big-budget release since The Mask of Zorro in 1998.

The same year, former 20th Century Fox co-chairman Tom Rothman joined Sony Pictures and created TriStar Productions as a joint venture with existing Sony Pictures executives. The new TriStar will develop, finance and produce up to four films per year, as well as television programming and acquisitions, starting on September 1. Sony's TriStar Pictures unit is currently being retained for "other product, including titles from Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions", and is distributing product from the new TriStar.

Logo

TriStar's logo features the winged horse Pegasus (either stationary or flying across the screen). The idea came from executive Victor Kaufman and his family's interest in riding horses. The original logo was created with the assistance of Sydney Pollack, who was an adviser at Tri-Star. The horse in the original filmed logo was the same one used in Pollack's film The Electric Horseman.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: TriStar Pictures


text:
API (disambiguation)

An API, or application programming interface, is any defined inter-program interface.

API or api may also refer to:

Companies and organizations

 * Academic Programs International, an American study-abroad provider
 * American Petroleum Institute, an American trade-lobbying and international-standardization organization
 * AmeriStat Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a US-based international wholesaler and exporter of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
 * Animal Protection Institute, an American non-profit organization
 * Anonima Petroli Italiana, an Italian petrol (gasoline) company
 * Associated Producers Incorporated a B picture subsidiary of 20th Century Fox
 * Athletes' Performance Institute, an American training facility for competitive athletes
 * Australian Pharmaceutical Industries
 * Australian Property Institute, an Australian professional organization in valuation
 * Automated Processes, Inc., an American audio electronics company
 * Automobile Products of India, an Indian automotive company
 * Aviation Partners Inc., an American aviation components company

In education

 * Academic Performance Index, a measure of scholastic performance used in California, United States
 * Auburn University, formerly known as Alabama Polytechnic Institute

Places

 * Api (mountain), Nepal
 * Api Chamber, a large cave chamber in Malaysia
 * Mount Api, Malaysia

In politics

 * Alliance for Italy, a centrist political party in Italy
 * Arab Peace Initiative, a peace initiative proposed in 2002 at the Beirut Summit of the Arab League

In science and technology

 * Active pharmaceutical ingredient, a basic component of any medicine or pharmaceutical drug
 * Advanced primer ignition, a type of blowback operation for firearms that ignites the primer when the bolt is still moving with the goal of increasing rate of fire and decreasing felt recoil.
 * Petroleum industry nomenclature deriving from American Petroleum Institute
 * API gravity, a measure of the density of petroleum
 * API number, a unique identifier applied to each petroleum exploration or production well drilled in the United States
 * API unit, a standard measure of natural gamma radiation measured in a borehole
 * Analytical Profile Index, a miniaturized panel of biochemical tests compiled for identification of groups of closely related bacteria
 * API oil-water separator
 * Air Pollution Index, a measure of air quality used in Hong Kong and Malaysia
 * Armor-piercing incendiary, a type of armor-piercing shot and shell
 * Atmospheric pressure ionization, a type of ionization in mass spectrometry
 * Apnea–hypopnea index, an index used to indicate the severity of sleep apnea

Other uses

 * Advance passenger information, passenger name record collected by commercial transportation operations
 * Asian-Pacific Islander
 * Aviation Preflight Indoctrination, the first major phase of training for a United States Naval Aviator
 * Announcement in the public interest, an alternate name for a public-service announcement
 * International Phonetic Alphabet, a system of phonetic notation (known in French as the alphabet phonétique international)
 * Api (apple), an apple cultivar.

title: API (disambiguation)


text:
Amblin Entertainment

Amblin' Entertainment, Inc., formerly named Amblin Productions and Steven Spielberg Productions, is an American film production company founded by director and producer Steven Spielberg, and film producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall in 1980. Its headquarters are located in Bungalow 477 of the Universal Studios backlot in Universal City, California. It distributes all of the films from Amblin Partners under the Amblin Entertainment banner.

Overview
Amblin is named after Steven Spielberg's first commercially released film, Amblin' (1968), a short independent film about a man and woman hitchhiking through the desert. Costing $15,000 to produce, it was shown for Universal Studios and won Spielberg more directing roles.

The company was established a year later, in 1969, and it was properly incorporated in 1970. On July 14, 1975, Spielberg signed a four-picture agreement with Universal Pictures to produce its feature films through his Amblin label, aiming to build upon the success of its first two theatrical pictures The Sugarland Express and Jaws. Although Amblin is an independent production company, Universal distributes many Amblin productions, and Amblin operates out of a building on the Universal lot.

Amblin produced its first film Continental Divide in 1981, with Spielberg serving as executive producer. The following year, Spielberg and Marshall caught the attention of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), for which they both produced Poltergeist with Amblin, but under the name Steven Spielberg Productions. The same year, Spielberg and Kennedy produced E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial with Amblin (with Spielberg also directing it), which ended up being the highest-grossing film of the year.

In 1983, Spielberg produced Twilight Zone: The Movie with Amblin (with Marshall credited as an executive producer), but the company was uncredited. Amblin went on to produce a number of successful films throughout the 1980s, such as Gremlins, Innerspace, Batteries Not Included, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and the Back to the Future trilogy. Gremlins was the first film to use the company's logo, which features the silhouette of Elliott flying in his bicycle with E.T. in the basket in front of the moon, from E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

In 1985, Spielberg and Don Bluth started a partnership to produce animated feature films. The only two films that were made from the Spielberg-Bluth deal were An American Tail (1986) and The Land Before Time (1988).

On November 5, 1986, Walt Disney Pictures and Amblin Entertainment teamed up to make Who Framed Roger Rabbit, its first collaboration of such after collaborations working with Universal Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures, which had a pre-existing joint deal, which was directed by Robert Zemeckis, and it was slated for a G-rated feature, but it was upped to a PG-rated feature under the Touchstone Pictures label.

In 1987, Amblin Entertainment had named Brad Globe, former head of Lorimar's marketing division, as vice president of marketing at the production company, and Globe himself would be joined by two special consultants, which were Martin J. Lewy and Gerry Lewis, and will work closely with the marketing department of the companies that released Amblin's product.

In 1989, a dispute over film-making budgets caused Spielberg and Bluth to part ways. Amblin established their own animation unit, Amblimation, which was headquartered in London. The only three films that were released under the Amblimation banner were An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (1991), We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story (1993) and Balto (1995). The Amblimation label was shut down in 1997 and most of the studio staff was transferred to DreamWorks Animation, which Spielberg co-founded in 1994. Two more films were in development at the time Amblimqtion was shut down. The first was an animated film adaptation of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical Cats which was cancelled following the studio's closure in 1997. The other was an animated film adaptation of a book written by William Steig, Shrek!, which was picked up by DreamWorks Animation and made into the 2001 animated film Shrek.

The same year, Amblin signed a deal with Turner Network Television to produce television films.

In 1991, founding partner Frank Marshall left the company after 10 years. The next year, Kathleen Kennedy left the company.

In 1992, Amblin launched a visual effects studio Amblin Imaging, headed by visual effects pioneer John Gross. It was later shut down in 1995.

In 1993, Walter Parkes and Laurie MacDonald joined the company.

On June 21, 2021, it was announced that Amblin Entertainment signed a deal with Netflix to release multiple new feature films for the streaming service. Under the deal, Amblin is expected to produce at least two films a year for Netflix for an unspecified number of years. It is possible that Spielberg may even direct some of the projects.

Theme park attractions
While Amblin has never had its own theme park, theme parks have made rides based on Amblin films and co-productions.
 * Back to the Future: The Ride, a simulator ride at Universal Studios Japan. The ride also existed at Universal Studios Florida and Universal Studios Hollywood.
 * Gremlins Invasion, a ride at Warner Bros. Movie World and Warner Bros. Movie World Germany.
 * Jurassic Park: The Ride, a water ride at Universal Studios Hollywood.
 * Men in Black: Alien Attack, a dark ride at Universal Studios Florida.
 * Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin, a dark ride in Mickey's Toontown, a land at Disneyland and Tokyo Disneyland.
 * Twister...Ride it Out, a simulator ride at Universal Studios Florida.
 * E.T. Adventure, a dark ride at Universal Studios Florida. Also existed at Universal Studios Hollywood and Universal Studios Japan.

title: Amblin Entertainment


text:
Talk:List of popular music terms

Untitled
What about non-technique related terms selling out and credibility, should they be on the list? Hyacinth 21:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of popular music terms


text:
Elizabeth River (Virginia)

The Elizabeth River is a 6 mi tidal estuary forming an arm of Hampton Roads harbor at the southern end of Chesapeake Bay in southeast Virginia in the United States. It is located along the southern side of the mouth of the James River, between the cities of Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Chesapeake. Forming the core of the Hampton Roads harbor, it is heavily supported by its tributaries which depend upon it.

Through its Southern Branch and the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, the Elizabeth River also is a gateway to points to the south for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, an inland path from the ocean providing a more sheltered navigable waterway to Florida for commercial and recreational boating.

History
The Elizabeth River was named by the Jamestown colonists in the early 17th century for Princess Elizabeth Stuart, She was the daughter of King James I of England and a sister of the later King Charles I, and his older brother, Henry Frederick, the ill-fated heir-apparent to the throne who died of typhoid fever as a teenager.

When the settlers aboard the three tiny ships of Captain Christopher Newport's 1607 voyage first discovered the great harbor of Hampton Roads a few days after reaching land at Cape Henry, they were seeking a pathway to the west to reach the "Great Indies" and soon sailed upriver along the largest and most likely westerly river, which they named the James (for their king), passing by the areas closest to the ocean as they sought a protected haven from other European forces such as the Spanish. Their settlement 35 mi inland at Jamestown was flawed in many other ways, but did meet the requirement of providing protection. Settlement along the Elizabeth River came a few years later.

During the U.S. Revolutionary War, Lord Dunmore and the British Royal Army sailed up the Elizabeth River and landed in Norfolk. The British Royal Army and the U.S. Continental Army then engaged at the Battle of Great Bridge on December 9, 1775. Upon British defeat, Lord Dunmore and his army withdrew onto four ships of the British Royal Navy, the Dunmore, the Liverpool, the Otter, and the Kingfisher. Under the command of Lord Dunmore, these ships patrolled along Norfolk's Elizabeth River waterfront and on New Year's Day 1776, began shelling Norfolk in what would later become known as the Burning of Norfolk.

During the War of 1812, two harbor fortifications located on opposite banks of the Elizabeth River were occupied to prevent the British from attacking Norfolk or Portsmouth. These defensive positions were Fort Norfolk, located on the eastern bank in Norfolk, and Fort Nelson, located on the western bank in Portsmouth. Neither of these forts saw action during the War of 1812. However, the men stationed at Fort Norfolk reinforced Craney Island, located at the mouth of the Elizabeth River, and took part in the Battle of Craney Island.

Geography
The main branch of the estuary is approximately 6 mi long and is 2 mi wide at its mouth. It is formed by three primary branches, all tidal, known as the Eastern, Southern, and Western branches of the Elizabeth River, extending 7 to 14 mi into neighboring communities. The Western and Southern branches are partially fed by tributaries that originate within the Great Dismal Swamp.

Importance and use
The Elizabeth River estuary and its tributaries provide significant military and commercial port facilities for Norfolk and Portsmouth, as well as a third major city, Chesapeake, which was formed by the voluntary political consolidation in 1963 of the small independent city of South Norfolk with much larger Norfolk County, which had long surrounded the other two large and expanding cities. The three cities surround the Elizabeth River and most of the area served by its three main branches. The Elizabeth River is the home of the oldest shipyard in the United States, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Founded as The Gosport Shipyard in 1767, the shipyard is still in use today having survived both the American Revolutionary and Civil wars and fires set to the shipyard within each conflict.

The river and its branches provide for both commerce and recreation activities. The Intracoastal Waterway connects to the greater Hampton Roads area through the Elizabeth River. They are of great importance to both commerce and the U.S. military considerations.

Environmental concerns
The Elizabeth River is a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay and faces significant environmental pollution challenges of its own that also hamper recovery in the Bay. The Elizabeth River's history with various industrial sites, such as dry docks, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, processing plants, and both sewage and storm water discharge contributed over time to the declining health of the river. In 1983, the EPA mentions the Elizabeth River was singled out as one of the most highly polluted bodies of water in the entire Bay watershed and as of 2011 remains one of the most polluted rivers on the United States east coast. Sediment contamination has made "toxic hot spots" within the Elizabeth River. Notably, the Southern Branch of the river at Money Point had become a 35-acre biological dead-zone with a nearly entirely lifeless river floor. Creosote (high in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) from dumping and a major fire in 1963 played a major role in contaminating the river sediment there, which in some areas were as much as five feet thick.

The Commonwealth of Virginia entered into an agreement in 1995 after the Chesapeake Bay Program identified the Elizabeth River system as a "Region of Concern" in 1993. By 2003 a report entitled "State of the River 2003" by the Elizabeth River Project had been published, highlighting the sediment contamination in the Southern Branch along with other toxins including those causing cancer in some fish after a monitoring the river between 1999 and 2001. Efforts began in the 1990s and by 2003 bald eagles were returned to the watershed. 2008 saw the 3rd State Of The Elizabeth River report, prepared for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, which finally provided data that most of the river was not suitable for swimming. At the same time, the report showed the most positive trends for improving levels of nutrients in Virginia compared to other areas of the Chesapeake Bay. In 2009, a pilot area was dredged at Money Point, replaced with clean sand, and restored with vegetation and artificial oyster reefs and in 2010 at least 17 species of fish and shellfish were found in the former toxic site where barely any life existed previously. In 2011, dredging of the toxic sediment began, near Money Point as part of a larger initiative to help restore the Elizabeth River. Industries along the river are also voluntarily playing their part in restoring wetlands and oyster reefs in one of the largest restoration projects on the Chesapeake Bay.

Crossings
Shipping has always been in competition with land-based transportation for crossings. Both activities are vital to the region.

Motor vehicles cross the main portion of the river using the Downtown Tunnel and the Midtown Tunnel. There are many other highway and railroad bridge crossings of the Eastern, Southern, and Western branches of the river of various ages and capacities, often with draw spans. The city of Chesapeake, with crossings of all three branches of the river by both railroads and highways of every type, and both bascule and swing-type draw spans, has the greatest number to contend with. In Chesapeake, the legal ownership and maintenance responsibilities are divided among the city, VDOT, and the railroads. In November 2012, the South Norfolk Jordan Bridge (SNJB) opened, a public-private partnership that allows the builder to toll for 50 years. The Bridge connects to Elm Avenue in Portsmouth and to Poindexter Street in Chesapeake. The bridge has no toll booths and relies on VDOT EZ-Pass transponders for payment or sends bills based on photography of license plates.

title: Elizabeth River (Virginia)


text:
Ranked pairs

Ranked Pairs (RP) is a tournament-style system of ranked-choice voting first proposed by Nicolaus Tideman in 1987.

Ranked pairs begins with a round-robin tournament, where the one-on-one margins of victory for each candidate are compared to find a majority-preferred candidate; if such a candidate exists, they are immediately elected. Otherwise, if there is a Condorcet cycle—a rock-paper-scissors-like sequence A > B > C > A—the cycle is broken by dropping the "weakest" elections in the cycle, i.e. the ones that are closest to being tied.

Procedure
The ranked pairs procedure is as follows:

 * 1) Consider each pair of candidates round-robin style, and calculate the pairwise margin of victory for each in a one-on-one matchup.
 * 2) Sort the pairs by the (absolute) margin of victory, going from largest to smallest.
 * 3) Going down the list, check whether adding each matchup would create a cycle. If it would, cross out the election; this will be the election(s) in the cycle with the smallest margin of victory (near-ties).

At the end of this procedure, all cycles will be eliminated, leaving a unique winner who wins every one-on-one matchup (that has not been crossed out). The lack of cycles means that candidates can be ranked directly based on the matchups that have been left behind.

The situation
The results are tabulated as follows:

 * [A] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
 * [B] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

Tally
First, list every pair, and determine the winner: The votes are then sorted. The largest majority is "Chattanooga over Knoxville"; 83% of the voters prefer Chattanooga. Thus, the pairs from above would be sorted this way:

Lock
The pairs are then locked in order, skipping any pairs that would create a cycle:

 * Lock Chattanooga over Knoxville.
 * Lock Nashville over Knoxville.
 * Lock Nashville over Chattanooga.
 * Lock Nashville over Memphis.
 * Lock Chattanooga over Memphis.
 * Lock Knoxville over Memphis.

In this case, no cycles are created by any of the pairs, so every single one is locked in.

Every "lock in" would add another arrow to the graph showing the relationship between the candidates. Here is the final graph (where arrows point away from the winner).

In this example, Nashville is the winner using the ranked-pairs procedure. Nashville is followed by Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Memphis in second, third, and fourth places respectively.

Summary
In the example election, the winner is Nashville. This would be true for any Condorcet method.

Under first-past-the-post and some other systems, Memphis would have won the election by having the most people, even though Nashville won every simulated pairwise election outright. Using instant-runoff voting in this example would result in Knoxville winning even though more people preferred Nashville over Knoxville.

Criteria
Of the formal voting criteria, the ranked pairs method passes the majority criterion, the monotonicity criterion, the Smith criterion (which implies the Condorcet criterion), the Condorcet loser criterion, and the independence of clones criterion. Ranked pairs fails the consistency criterion and the participation criterion. While ranked pairs is not fully independent of irrelevant alternatives, it still satisfies local independence of irrelevant alternatives and independence of Smith-dominated alternatives, meaning it is likely to roughly satisfy IIA "in practice."

Independence of irrelevant alternatives
Ranked pairs fails independence of irrelevant alternatives, like all other ranked voting systems. However, the method adheres to a less strict property, sometimes called independence of Smith-dominated alternatives (ISDA). It says that if one candidate (X) wins an election, and a new alternative (Y) is added, X will win the election if Y is not in the Smith set. ISDA implies the Condorcet criterion.

Comparison table
The following table compares ranked pairs with other single-winner election methods:

title: Ranked pairs


text:
Jerry

Jerry may refer to:

Animals

 * Jerry (Grand National winner), racehorse, winner of the 1840 Grand National
 * Jerry (St Leger winner), racehorse, winner of 1824 St Leger Stakes

Arts, entertainment, and media

 * Jerry (film), a 2006 Indian film
 * Jerry (play), a 1914 American play
 * "Jerry", a song from the album Young and Free by Rock Goddess
 * "Jerry" (Adventure Time: Fionna and Cake), an episode of the animated television series Adventure Time: Fionna and Cake
 * Tom and Jerry (disambiguation)
 * Jerry, a fictional character who is The Lich BMO named of another universe from Adventure Time
 * Jerry (The Walking Dead), a fictional character from The Walking Dead

People

 * Jerry (given name), including a list of people and fictional characters with the name
 * Harold A. Jerry, Jr. (1920–2001), New York politician
 * Thomas Jeremiah (d. 1775), commonly known simply as "Jerry", a free Negro in colonial South Carolina
 * Tyson Jerry (born 1983), a Canadian Guinness World Record holder
 * Jerry (born 1964), one half of the Indian filmmaking duo J. D.–Jerry

Places

 * Branche à Jerry, a tributary of the Baker River in Quebec and New Brunswick, Canada

Other uses

 * Jerry (company)
 * Jerry (WWII), Allied nickname for Germans, originally from WWI but widely used in World War II
 * Jerry Rescue (1851), involving American slave William Henry, who called himself "Jerry"

title: Jerry


text:
Same-sex marriage in South Africa

Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Africa since the Civil Union Act, 2006 came into force on 30 November 2006. The decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie on 1 December 2005 extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses—as the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equal protection before the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation—and gave Parliament one year to rectify the inequality in the marriage statutes. On 14 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a law allowing same-sex couples to legally solemnise their union 229 to 41, which was subsequently approved by the National Council of Provinces on 28 November in a 36 to 11 vote, and the law came into effect two days later.

South Africa was the fifth country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage after the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada, and remains the only African country to have done so.

Background
South Africa was the first country in the world to safeguard sexual orientation as a human right in its Constitution. The Constitution of South Africa, which took effect on 4 February 1997, forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, gender or sexual orientation. These equality rights formed the basis for a series of court decisions granting specific rights to couples in long-term same-sex relationships:
 * National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice (1998) decriminalised consensual sexual activities between men.
 * Langemaat v Minister of Safety and Security (1998) recognised the reciprocal duty of support between same-sex partners, and extended health insurance benefits.
 * National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs (1999) extended immigration benefits to foreign partners of South African citizens.
 * Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa (2002) extended remuneration and pension benefits.
 * Du Toit v Minister of Welfare and Population Development (2002) allowed same-sex couples to adopt children jointly.
 * J v Director General, Department of Home Affairs (2003) allowed both partners to be recorded as the parents of a child conceived through artificial insemination.
 * Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund (2003) recognised the claim for loss of support when a same-sex partner is negligently killed.
 * Gory v Kolver NO (2006) allowed inheritance of the estate of a partner who died intestate.

The Fourie case
In 2002, a lesbian couple, Marié Fourie and Cecelia Bonthuys, with the support of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project, launched an application in the Pretoria High Court to have their union recognised and recorded by the Department of Home Affairs as a valid marriage. Judge Pierre Roux dismissed the application on 18 October 2002 on the technical basis that they had not properly attacked the constitutionality of the definition of marriage or the Marriage Act, 1961.

Fourie and Bonthuys requested leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, but this was denied and the High Court instead granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). They applied to the Constitutional Court for direct access, but this was denied on 31 July 2003; the court stated that the case raised complex issues of common and statutory law on which the SCA's views should first be heard.

Fourie and Bonthuys therefore appealed the High Court judgment to the SCA, which handed down its decision on 30 November 2004. The five-judge court ruled unanimously that the common-law definition of marriage was invalid because it unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, and that it should be extended to read "Marriage is the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others for life." The court further unanimously noted that because Fourie and Bonthuys had not challenged the Marriage Act, the court could not invalidate it, and, therefore, their marriage could not immediately be solemnized. The court divided, however, on whether the couple should be given an immediate remedy in implementing the new, wider common-law definition of marriage. The majority opinion, written by Judge Edwin Cameron, ruled that the new definition should apply immediately. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Ian Farlam was of the opinion that the court's order declaring the common-law definition invalid should be suspended for two years to allow Parliament to adopt its own remedy for the situation.

The Government of South Africa appealed the SCA's ruling to the Constitutional Court, arguing that a major alteration to the institution of marriage was for Parliament and not the courts to decide, while Fourie and Bonthuys cross-appealed, arguing that the Marriage Act should be altered as Judge Farlam had suggested. In the meanwhile, the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project had also launched a separate lawsuit directly attacking the constitutionality of the Marriage Act, which was originally to be heard in the Johannesburg High Court; the Constitutional Court granted the Project's request to have it heard and decided simultaneously with the Fourie case.

On 1 December 2005, the Constitutional Court handed down its decision: the nine justices agreed unanimously that the common-law definition of marriage and the marriage formula in the Marriage Act, to the extent that they excluded same-sex partners from marriage, were unfairly discriminatory, unjustifiable, and therefore unconstitutional and invalid. In a widely quoted passage from the majority ruling, Justice Albie Sachs wrote: "'The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, accordingly, is not a small and tangential inconvenience resulting from a few surviving relics of societal prejudice destined to evaporate like the morning dew. It represents a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples. It reinforces the wounding notion that they are to be treated as biological oddities, as failed or lapsed human beings who do not fit into normal society, and, as such, do not qualify for the full moral concern and respect that our Constitution seeks to secure for everyone. It signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples.'" There was some disagreement about the remedy: the majority (eight of the justices) ruled that the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for a year to allow Parliament to correct the situation, as there were different ways in which this could be done, and the Law Reform Commission had already investigated several proposals. If Parliament did not end the inequality by 1 December 2006, then words would automatically be "read in" to the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriages. Justice Kate O'Regan dissented, arguing that these words should be read in immediately.

Civil Union Act
On 24 August 2006, the Cabinet approved the Civil Union Bill for submission to Parliament. The bill as initially introduced would only have allowed civil partnerships which would have been open only to same-sex couples and have the same legal consequences as marriage. It also included provisions to recognise domestic partnerships between unmarried partners, both same-sex and opposite-sex. The state law advisers, who screen laws for constitutionality and form, declined to certify the bill, suggesting that it failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Court. The Joint Working Group, a network of LGBT organisations, described the idea of a separate marriage law for same-sex couples as "an apartheid way of thinking".

On 16 September, thousands of South Africans took to the streets in several cities to protest same-sex marriage. The minor opposition African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) pushed for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between "a man and a woman"; this was rejected by the National Assembly's Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs. Public hearings on the bill began on 20 September. On 7 October, the Marriage Alliance organised a march to the Union Buildings in Pretoria to hand a memorandum opposing same-sex marriage to government representatives. On 9 October, the governing African National Congress (ANC) voted to support the bill. Although the party had been split on the issue, the vote meant that ANC MPs would be obliged to support the bill in Parliament. The full party support came after members of the national executive committee reminded party members that the ANC had fought for human rights, which includes gay rights.

It was originally expected that the National Assembly would vote on the bill on 20 October in order to allow enough time for the National Council of Provinces to debate and vote on it ahead of the 1 December deadline. The vote was repeatedly delayed as the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs was still involved in discussions. In response to the argument that 'separate but equal' civil partnerships would not comply with the Constitutional Court's ruling, the Portfolio Committee amended the bill to allow either marriages or civil partnerships, and to allow them to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The chapter dealing with the recognition of domestic partnerships was removed.

On 13 November, one day before the bill would be read for a final reading in the National Assembly, Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota said: "The roots of this bill lie in many years of struggle... This country cannot afford to be a prison of timeworn prejudices which have no basis in modern society. Let us bequeath to future generations a society which is more democratic and tolerant than the one that was handed down to us."

The amended bill was passed by the National Assembly on 14 November by 229 votes to 41, and by the National Council of Provinces on 28 November by 36 votes to 11. Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, acting for President Thabo Mbeki, signed it into law on 29 November, and it became law the following day, one day before the Constitutional Court's order would otherwise have come into force. Minister of Home Affairs Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said the law was only a temporary measure, noting that a fuller marriage law would be formulated to harmonise the several pieces of marriage legislation now in force.

The bill was hailed by gay and liberal activists as another step forward out of the country's apartheid past, while at the same time some clergy and traditional leaders described it as "the saddest day in our 12 years of democracy." Islamic leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed called the bill a "foreign action imposed on Africa".

The first couple to wed, Vernon Gibbs and Tony Halls, did so in George, the following day, 1 December 2006. They encountered no problems, and a second couple married later that day in the same location. In 2013, South Africa's first traditional same-sex wedding was held for Tshepo Cameron Modisane and Thoba Calvin Sithole in KwaDukuza, KwaZulu-Natal.

In October 2020, the Department of Home Affairs confirmed that it plans to introduce a new draft marriage policy in South Africa, reconciling the diverse marriage laws into a single piece of legislation "that will enable South Africans of different sexual orientation, religious and cultural persuasions to conclude legal marriages", but indicated that the process had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2021, the South African Law Reform Commission issued a 300-page discussion paper, offering a number of proposals and alternatives. The commission called for public comments on its discussion paper. The proposed changes include reforms introducing a default property system, as spouses who have not entered into a formal marriage have no statutory rights to share in property which was amassed during the relationship, as well as the legalisation of polyandry. A draft bill was approved by the Cabinet, and published in the Government Gazette on 7 July 2023. The period for written submission was open until 31 August 2023. The bill was tabled in Parliament in December 2023, and was open for public comments until 17 May 2024.

In January 2024, Jacob Zuma, who had served as president between 2009 and 2018, said his newly-formed uMkhonto we Sizwe party would overhaul laws permitting same-sex marriage if elected in the 2024 election. Zuma had previously stated in an interview with The Guardian in 2012 that he opposed repealing the Civil Union Act.

Law
[[File:African homosexuality laws.svg|thumb|300px|Same-sex sexual activity legal {{legend|#002255|Same-sex marriage}}

{{legend|#CAF|Limited recognition (foreign residency rights)}} {{legend|#cccccc|No recognition of same-sex couples}} Same-sex sexual activity illegal {{legend|#f9dc36|Prison but not enforced}} {{legend|#ec8028|Prison}}

]]

Three laws currently provide for the status of marriage in South Africa. These are the Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1961), which provides for civil or religious opposite-sex marriages; the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (Act 120 of 1998), which provides for the civil registration of marriages solemnised according to the traditions of indigenous groups; and the Civil Union Act (Act 17 of 2006), which provides for opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriages, religious marriages and civil partnerships. A person may only be married under one of these laws at any given time.

Couples marrying in terms of the Civil Union Act may choose whether their union is registered as a marriage or a civil partnership. In either case, the legal consequences are identical to those of a marriage under the Marriage Act, except for such changes as are required by the context. Any reference to marriage in any law, including the common law, is deemed to include a marriage or civil partnership in terms of the Civil Union Act; similarly, any reference to husband, wife or spouse in any law is deemed to include a reference to a spouse or civil partner in terms of the Civil Union Act.

Restrictions
The parties to a marriage or civil partnership must be 18 or older and not already married or civilly partnered. The prohibited degrees of affinity and consanguinuity that apply under the Marriage Act also apply under the Civil Union Act; thus a person may not marry his or her direct ancestor or descendant, sibling, uncle or aunt, niece or nephew, or the ancestor or descendant of an ex-spouse.

The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, 1998 allows, in limited circumstances, a man to marry multiple wives. A person married under the Civil Union Act may not enter into marriage with a second partner until the existing marriage is dissolved.

Solemnisation
Marriages and civil partnerships must be solemnised by an authorised marriage officer. Government officials (primarily magistrates and Home Affairs civil servants) who are appointed as marriage officers under the Marriage Act are also able to solemnise marriages in terms of the Civil Union Act. Religious leaders may also be appointed as marriage officers under the Civil Union Act, but religious leaders appointed under the Marriage Act are not automatically able to solemnise marriages in terms of the Civil Union Act.

Originally, government marriage officers who had an objection of conscience to solemnising same-sex marriages or civil partnerships were exempted from doing so if they noted their objection in writing to the Minister of Home Affairs. This provision did not apply to religious marriage officers because they are in any case not obliged to solemnise a marriage that would violate the doctrines of their religion. Several constitutional scholars argued that this provision was unconstitutional, calling it "state-sanctioned discrimination" in violation of the right to equality. In July 2017, more than a decade after same-sex marriage was legalised in South Africa, LGBT newspaper Mambaonline reported that 421 (out of 1,130) marriage officers in South Africa were exempt from performing same-sex marriages or civil partnerships, mostly in the Eastern Cape, the Free State and Mpumalanga. A bill to repeal the exemption was introduced by MP Deidre Carter in January 2018. The bill was amended in Parliament to allow officials who previously did not marry same-sex couples to continue doing so for two years. This gave the Ministry of Home Affairs time to implement the new policy. New officials, however, cannot opt out at all for any time. If a branch had an official opting out for the two-year period, they had to have another official available who could perform the marriage. The measure passed the National Assembly on 6 December 2018 and the National Council of Provinces on 1 July 2020. It was signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa on 22 October 2020 as the Civil Union Amendment Act, 2020.

Discrimination
Discrimination against same-sex couples is prohibited (as is all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation) by section 9 of the Constitution and by the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.

Recognition of foreign unions
The Civil Union Act makes no explicit provisions for the recognition of foreign same-sex unions. As a consequence of the extension of the common-law definition of marriage, and based on the principle of lex loci celebrationis, a foreign same-sex marriage is recognised as a marriage in South African law. However, the status of foreign forms of partnership other than marriage, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, is not clear. In a 2010 divorce case, the Western Cape High Court recognised the validity of a British civil partnership as equivalent to a marriage or civil partnership in South African law.

Criticism of the focus on same-sex marriage
In a 2007 paper, constitutional scholar Pierre de Vos questioned the notion that the legalisation of same-sex marriage in South Africa represents the pinnacle of the human rights struggle of members of the LGBT community. He argued that those who are not involved in long-term monogamous relationships and those who cannot come out of the closet and get married because of the threat of victimisation may not see any benefit from the legislation.

Statistics
According to the South African Government, over 3,000 same-sex couples had married in South Africa by mid-2010. Statistics South Africa reported that a total of 3,327 marriages and civil partnerships were registered under the Civil Union Act up to the end of 2011; however, this figure only reflects marriages in which at least one of the spouses is a South African citizen or permanent resident. Furthermore, not all marriages under the Civil Union Act are between partners of the same sex, though most opposite-sex couples continue to marry under the Marriage Act, 1961.

The Statistics South Africa data are further broken down by province and year; they show that the majority of same-sex marriages were registered in Gauteng and the Western Cape.

Lonely Planet has named Cape Town (in the Western Cape) one of the world's top 10 "gay wedding destinations".

Religious performance
Most major religious organisations in South Africa do not perform same-sex marriages in their places of worship. Religious institutions are not obliged to solemnise a marriage that would violate the doctrines of their faith. In 2007, the Department of Home Affairs confirmed that 17 religious denominations in South Africa had applied to officiate at same-sex marriages under the Civil Union Act.

The Anglican Church of Southern Africa does not permit same-sex marriages. Its marriage policies state that "holy matrimony is the lifelong and exclusive union between one man and one woman". The Anglican Diocese of Cape Town passed a resolution in 2009 to give pastoral guidelines to same-sex couples who live in "covenanted relationships". The resolution agreed to affirm "a pastoral response to same-sex partnerships of faithful commitment in our parish families." In 2016, the synod voted against blessing same-sex unions. The decision split the church, with several dioceses deciding to nonetheless proceed with the blessing of same-sex relationships, notably the Diocese of Saldanha Bay. Archbishop Thabo Makgoba expressed disappointment with the decision not to bless same-sex unions, but added that "all is not lost", expressing hope that the matter would be debated again in the future. Former Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane also expressed his disappointment with the decision. Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu supported the blessing of same-sex unions. His daughter, Mpho Tutu van Furth, married her partner Marceline van Furth, a Dutch professor of medicine, in the Netherlands in 2015. Shortly after the marriage, her license as a priest was withdrawn. In early 2023, the church once again refused to allow its clergy to bless same-sex unions, but directed the synod to develop "guidelines for providing pastoral ministry to those in same-sex relationships". In May 2024, Archbishop Makgoba released a document recommending prayers for same-sex couples, which the synod is expected to discuss in September.

In 2015, the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church voted by a 64% majority to recognise same-sex marriages, bless the relationships of same-sex couples and allow gay ministers and clergy (who are not required to be celibate). The decision applies to 9 of the 10 synods; with the Namibia Synod being excluded. The decision caused backlash and objections, resulting in it being reversed a year later. A dozen church members subsequently took the denomination to court to restore the 2015 decision. In 2019, the North Gauteng High Court reversed the decision, ruling that while religious organizations have the religious freedom to define marriage the 2016 decision was not made in accordance with the church's own proper process. Individual pastors are free to choose whether to bless same-sex marriages; a freedom of conscience clause allows pastors with objections to opt out of performing same-sex weddings.

In 2015, the synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa discussed same-sex unions but stated that "a marriage is understood as a union only between a man and a woman. Furthermore the valid and unchanged position of our Church is that the blessing of same sex unions is rejected." In 2020, the Methodist Church of Southern Africa voted to allow members, including ordained clergy, to enter into same-sex unions, while retaining the denomination's teaching that marriage is a union "between a man and a woman".

The Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa consists of seven regional synods. In October 2018, the southern synod, covering most of Gauteng and parts of Mpumalanga, voted to allow its clergy to perform same-sex marriages, polygamous marriages and ordain openly LGBT ministers.

The Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage and does not allow its priests to officiate at such marriages. In December 2023, the Holy See published Fiducia supplicans, a declaration allowing Catholic priests to bless couples who are not considered to be married according to church teaching, including the blessing of same-sex couples. Archbishop of Cape Town Stephen Brislin issued a statement that "the document states that the blessing should not be a ritual that is issued by the bishop or by the bishops' conference or any authority. It should be left to the pastor to spontaneously give a simple blessing that could be done at a shrine, on a pilgrimage, or in a prayer group." The Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference added that "the document offers suggestions for when and how the blessings might be given. The Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference will guide further on how such a blessing may be requested and granted to avoid the confusion the document warns against. In the meantime, the suggestions offered by the declaration may be taken as a guide with prudence."

Public opinion
A 2014 survey found that voters from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) were the most supportive of same-sex marriage, followed closely by voters from the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the African National Congress (ANC).

A 2015 Ipsos poll found that 45% of South Africans supported same-sex marriage, while a further 13% supported civil unions or another form of legal recognition. A report conducted by the Human Sciences Research Council on behalf of The Other Foundation was described by some media outlets as the first "statistically sound, nationally representative data" on LGBT issues in Africa. The report found that the proportion of those who "strongly agree" with same-sex marriage had increased tenfold from 2012 to 2015, from 1.5% to 9.9%, while the proportion of people "strongly disagreeing" dropped from 48.5% to 23.4%. The total of "agree" and "strongly agree" making 36.6% (13.5% in 2012), while the "disagree" and "strongly disagree" totaled 46% (78.5% in 2012), the remaining being undecided or neutral.

A September–October 2016 survey by the Varkey Foundation found that 54% of 18–21-year-olds supported same-sex marriage in South Africa.

A May 2021 Ipsos poll showed that 59% of South Africans supported same-sex marriage, 12% supported civil partnerships but not marriage, while 15% were opposed to all legal recognition for same-sex couples, and 14% were undecided. In addition, 18% of South Africans had already attended the wedding of a same-sex couple.

A Pew Research Center poll conducted between February and May 2023 showed that 38% of South Africans supported same-sex marriage, 58% were opposed and 4% did not know or had refused to answer. When divided by age, support was highest among 18–34-year-olds at 42% and lowest among those aged 35 and above at 34%. Women (45%) were also more likely to support same-sex marriage than men (30%). A 2023 Ipsos poll showed that 57% of South Africans supported same-sex marriage, while 10% supported civil unions or other types of partnerships but not marriage, 14% were undecided and 19% were opposed to all recognition for same-sex couples.

title: Same-sex marriage in South Africa