text:
Donavia

JSC "Donavia" (ОАО «Донавиа») was an Aeroflot subsidiary airline based in Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Its main bases were Rostov-on-Don Airport and Mineralnye Vody Airport after the Kavminvodyavia bankruptcy. It was known as Aeroflot-Don (ОАО «Аэрофлот-Дон») from 2000–2009. In the spring of 2016, its operations and aircraft were merged into sister company Rossiya.

History

The airline was established on 15 June 1925 as a squadron under the Soviet airline Aeroflot. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was rebranded as Don Airlines ("Donavia") in 1993. It absorbed the Rostov assets of Aeroflot, and was one of many such "Babyflots" to emerge in the early 1990s. However, the airline was purchased by Aeroflot in 2000 and began to operate as Aeroflot-Don on 13 April 2000. It operated scheduled domestic and international passenger flights as well as passenger and cargo charters, mostly to the Middle East and within Russia. On 25 September 2009, the airline reverted to the Donavia brand name and the airline adopted Airbus A319-151 and operated for ten years until operations were folded into Rossiya Airlines in 2016.

Destinations
Donavia served the following destinations before its merger with Rossiya:

Central Asia

 * Dushanbe – Dushanbe International Airport
 * Khujand – Khujand Airport
 * Tashkent – Tashkent International Airport
 * Tashkent – Tashkent International Airport
 * Tashkent – Tashkent International Airport

Western Asia

 * Yerevan – Zvartnots International Airport
 * Tel Aviv – Ben Gurion International Airport
 * Antalya – Antalya Airport
 * Istanbul – Istanbul Atatürk Airport
 * Antalya – Antalya Airport
 * Istanbul – Istanbul Atatürk Airport
 * Istanbul – Istanbul Atatürk Airport

Europe

 * Krasnodar – Krasnodar International Airport
 * Mineralnye Vody – Mineralnye Vody Airport Focus City
 * Moscow Focus City
 * Moscow Domodedovo Airport
 * Vnukovo International Airport
 * Novosibirsk – Tolmachevo Airport
 * Rostov-on-Don – Rostov-on-Don Airport Hub
 * Saint Petersburg – Pulkovo Airport
 * Sochi – Sochi International Airport Focus City
 * Stavropol – Stavropol Shpakovskoye Airport
 * Volgograd – Volgograd International Airport
 * Yekaterinburg – Koltsovo Airport
 * Simferopol – Simferopol International Airport
 * Simferopol – Simferopol International Airport
 * Simferopol – Simferopol International Airport

The political status of Crimea is the subject of a political and territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine.

Fleet
In April 2016, the entire Donavia fleet was reassigned to Rossiya. Retired fleet

title: Donavia


text:
Talk:Mariano Rajoy

Javier Milei
I see the bibliography describes Javier Milei as far right. This is absurd bias and should not be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerchasúr (talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant
Ah, yes, the mighty ganse of the sands; we have dismissed that claim.

Regional issues
Battle speech unmentioned. His speech was as follows: I have come to trust each of you with my life -- but I have also heard murmurs of discontent. I share your concerns. We are trained for espionage; we would be legends, but the records are sealed. Glory in battle is not our way. Think of our heroes; the Silent Step, who defeated a nation with a single shot. Or the Ever Alert, who kept armies at bay with hidden facts. These giants do not seem to give us solace here, but they are not all that we are. Before the network, there was the fleet. Before diplomacy, there were soldiers! Our influence stopped Franco, but before that we held the line! Our influence stopped Felipe Gonzalez, but before that, we held the line! Our influence will stop Zapatero; in the battle today, we will hold the line!” Lies, lies, lies and more lies and this shit isn't "objective". For example, the "catalan statutory reform" was approved by the 75% of the voters.

EpC
Just to mention
 * In Spain there are only two national PTA (AMPAs) confederation, CEAPA (secular), the biggest one, that supports EpC and CONCAPA (catholic) that is against EpC, most of the other remarkable organisations that are aginst EpC are affilated in one way or another to PP or the RACC.
 * On the prospect of Political parties only take account of those in the Cortes, groups of friends dont count. There only PP opposes EpC.
 * Please try to keep a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zape82 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Small edits
I've noticed that somebody is capitalizing nouns that aren't proper nouns. It's a small thing but I thought it would be nice to correct. <> On another note this use of derogation looks like a poor translation from spanish to english. Derogar means revoke or abolish or scrap, but derogation is an exemption from or relaxation of a rule or law. Which sense was intended?
 * LocalGirl 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LocalGirl 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

11th to 14th of March 2004
The three days between the terrorist attack and the general elections were very polemic. The way it is currently mentioned in the article is very similar to the accusations the Socialist Party has been making to Rajoy about his behaviour. Nevertheless Rajoy says his attitude was different, as he and the other members of the government communicated publicly information as it was being known, being actually the first ones to say the possibility that it was not ETA, that no one had announced their participation and that they doubted that ETA had the assets to make a killing 10 times bigger than their previous biggest one (Hipercor Barcelona). I therefore think that all this should be included in the article, eventually mentioning the polemic about it. Does anyone disagree? Escorial82 12:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Surname
Why is he "Mariano Rajoy Brey" and not "Mariano Rajoy y Brey"? СЛУЖБА (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone in Spain, when we´re born and registered , are named by our father´s surname AND mother´s surname . But , altough the name is registered as "FIRST and SECOND", anyone uses this form , because the AND is not a part of the surname ,  then the correct name would by FIRT SECOND, and we all have our ID in the correct way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.56.203 (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mariano Rajoy is a Galician, not a Castilian. Regardless of the fact he is as pro-Union as Franco and may in fact be the reincarnation of Franco, he is a Galician and thus his name will reflect that factor. In fact, he might even be related to the Castro brothers in Cuba as they are also of Galician descent. ~ Prince of Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.26.137 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The "y" is optional, and considered rather old-fashioned. Few people use it in Spain. See the article on Spanish naming customs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed "in a month's time" to "in mid-December 2011", as "in a month's time" will soon become out of date. The new Spanish Parliament will constitute itself on December 13, and a new government is expected to be formed before the Christmas vacation, according to La Vanguardia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

accusations in 2013
rajoy now is watched on 2 fronts.Recuperating the economy of spain and defending his personal past as he receives attacks from both the psoe party as well as his own party x minister of treasury.Im sure wikipedia will track him on both fronts.I hope wikipedia will be fair.Rajoy deserves a chance to do the job.And not to be boggled down in the mud of accusations revenge shots and unverifiable claims..murcia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.122.132 (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Princess of Murcia, Rajoy gets whatever is coming to him. He is a corrupt official like everyone else in Southern Europe and thus doesn't deserve nor warrant your sympathies. In fact, how can justify Spanish unionism in absence of Portugal? Emperor of Spain was a ceremonial position. There was no Kingdom of Spain until Philip II inherited the Portuguese throne. Losing Portugal = The End of Spain. It is only a factor of Visigothic stubbornness that you don't consider this reality. Spaniards should consider Swizterfying their country. Switzerfying = Being like the Swiss. And respecting Spain of its cultural distinctions and developing cantons similar to the ones in Switzerland to manage Spain's cultural diversity. But no, expecting a Spaniard to act like a decent human being is clearly asking for too much, even though I can ask the same from a Greek or Italian and they perfectly fine with it. I guess Hispania is just the one former Roman province that didn't receive the same historical attention of Roman ethics and culture that Italy and Greece had received or had period. ~ Prince of Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.26.137 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed Ideology section
Removed ideology section which was blatantly bias, and all sources led to opinion pieces or suspect far left websites, not vetted non-partisan news sites or academic studies. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 19:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 * You must be kidding, the references provided are valid (Example: Faro de Vigo: Mariano Rajoy: Igualdad humana y modelos de sociedad). --Jimbomedia (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think he is kidding. Blog style campaign sites like losgenoves and an opinion piece where he is barely mentioned, not to mention dubious attempts to compare him to Adolf Hitler based on pure original research are very far from what we should be putting in a WP:BLP. Valenciano (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Trotona de Pontevedra & Franco "Paquita"

 * El Partido Popular difunde una carta alabando al dictador Francisco Franco (People's Party of Spain disseminated a letter praising the genocidal Francisco Franco)

Give your best shot.

With love, --87.218.77.74 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 * There's nothing to shoot at, since the target is too small to see. Valenciano (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Let me elaborate here. There are three relevant policies/guidelines in this situation. WP:BLP (we have to be careful what we accuse living people of), WP:NOTNEWS (articles should give an overview, not cover every detail of a person's life and career) and WP:NPOV (articles need to be written without bias.)

 * So far all you've given us is a single news story, the scan of which is too small to provide any info. We can't read anything other than the headline. We don't even know the date or page number or what the newspaper is. So we can't judge whether it is a reliable source or not. So that raises too many questions before it can be included. What was the background and context to all this? Was it only reported locally and briefly or did the story gain lasting national attention? (If the former, then per WP:NOTNEWS, it's unlikely to be notable enough to include.) What was the content of the letter? Did the newspaper report those contents fairly and accurately? What did the letter praise Franco for? Was it something relatively innocuous like having a better transport policy or providing more financial support for fishermen? (I strongly doubt that they praised him for killing opponents so, per WP:NPOV, wording that they "praised the genocidal Francisco Franco" is not going to happen.) What was the PP response to all this? That would need to be included to provide balance.

 * Until all those questions are answered I'm afraid that for me, inclusion of that material is unacceptable. Also the purpose of this encyclopedia is to inform the readers, not to score political points and the title you've chosen for this section and the fact that you've made vandalistic changes like this and this elsewhere means it's much harder for me to accept good faith with you. Valenciano (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Elected?
Rajoy was not "elected" on 20 November 2011. He was appointed after his party won a parliamentary election. He is a PM, not a president.101.98.209.132 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Add "Category:Political corruption" and "Category:Corruption in Spain" to Mariano Rajoy
Due to several corruption cases like as gurtel case or barcenas affair on Mariano Rajoy has been involved, I think to be add "Category:Political corruption" and "Category:Corruption in Spain" to main article.

What do you think? --188.76.75.104 (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Rajoy hasn't been convicted of any crime as yet, so per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCAT, addition of those categories is unacceptable. Only after a criminal conviction is secured could we add those, and that looks unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. Valenciano (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

google predicts rajoy winner
Google has correctly predicted 74℅ of all elections simply by counting how manybtimes people google the names the parties accompanied by terms like good bad no yes. Google says rajoy is going to win  do you think this is news worthy ?should Google announce a winner at all and based on google analytics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.193.163 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, a bit uselrdd right now since he won and then got a 'mocion de censura' Nixrero 2 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mariano Rajoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051205020019/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2005/WORLD/europe/12/01/madrid.crash/ to http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/01/madrid.crash/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Acting
Why don't we put his ACTING dates in the infobox? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mariano Rajoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102190749/http://laradiodelsur.com/?p=56385 to http://laradiodelsur.com/?p=56385
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103235602/http://multimedia.farodevigo.es/fotos/sociedad/letizia-ortiz-recepcion-michelle-bachelet-27792_3.shtml to http://multimedia.farodevigo.es/fotos/sociedad/letizia-ortiz-recepcion-michelle-bachelet-27792_3.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mariano Rajoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420230905/http://www.intereconomia.com/noticias/Mariano%20Rajoy to http://www.intereconomia.com/noticias/mariano%20rajoy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ordinal
Spanish primer ministers (I get that it might be due to a variety of reasons), are not usually numbered. In any case, Martínez de la Rosa was the first politician styled as "president of the Council of Ministers" in 1834, but again, that's inconsequential for this entry as sources do not put a number next to Rajoy. It is just an invention/subpar synth, and it really tells nothing of value about Rajoy.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

End of term
Rajoy's term ended on June 2, not on June 1. It specifically ended when Sánchez became Prime Minister. There cannot be a power vacuum between both days. The Royal Decrees published in the Official Diary of the State were signed on June 1, but were published the following day, and therefore did not come into force until that same day. The day the decree was signed has no legal validity. Please check how the Decree which made Rajoy Prime Minister in 2011 was also signed one day before it came into force - it was signed on December 20, the day he was elected by the Congress of Deputies, but Rajoy only became Prime Minister one day later, when the Decree was published and he was sworn in. This same article states that his first term began on December 21, so there is an obvious contradiction between both dates, because two different criteria are being followed. I can guarantee you that the correct criterium is the 21 December - 2 June one, which is the one that has been followed to fix the date Rajoy's term began and also to establish the dates when former Spanish Prime Ministers began and finished their terms. Thanks a lot for your attention. Check: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/12/21/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-19861.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * La Moncloa's website clearly shows 1 June 2018 as Rajoy's term end. The outgoing PM is automatically considered as removed with the motion of no confidence. All of this text you add here is an interpretation of yours so as to how this should be, but the sources are crystal clear. Combining material from multiple sources as you do, to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed.  Impru20 talk 12:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not combining multiple sources. You are. In this case, there is only one legally valid source (BOE), not LaMoncloa site. You justify your decision to keep the 1 June date according to what LaMoncloa website says. LaMoncloa is the official Government's website, but it may contain mistakes - it's suffered a lot of changes recently due to the rapid change of Government - and, obviously, what it states does not have legal effects. The chart you've shown is just for informal information, and the information itself might have been extracted from Wikipedia by those who wrote it. The legal source that must be paid attention to is the BOE, which clearly states that Rajoy was legally dismissed as Prime Minister on June 2, the same day when Sánchez'sterm began once he was sworn in. Besides, there cannot be a power void between June 1 and June 2, as there is no one else who acted as a caretaker Prime Minister between those days: Rajoy did. The rest of the dates the chart shows are continuous, there is no such power void, which cannot have existed according to Spanish law: Zapatero's term ended on 21 December, when Rajoy's term started, etc. Please do not use non-legal sources such as LaMoncloa website to cover information. Thanks for your attention. I insist I'm not re-interpreting the sources, but applying the legally valid ones. PS: The outgoing PM is automatically considered as removed with the motion of no confidence, but acts as the caretaker Prime Minister until the new one is sworn in. The same happened last time when Rajoy was voted PM on 20 December. Zapatero remained in power until 21 December, when the Royal Decree making official Rajoy's Prime Ministership was published and he was sworn in. Check legal sources please.
 * You're obviously doing so. La Moncloa's website states that Rajoy's term ended on 1 June, and it does so repeteadly (for instance, see here: XII Legislatura. Desde su inicio, 19 de julio de 2016, hasta el 1 de junio de 2018, preside el Gobierno Mariano Rajoy Brey, del PP. A partir de esa fecha, preside el Gobierno Pedro Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, del PSOE.). It's very simple. You're reinterpreting different sources, Spanish legislation and the such to try to argue that your opinion should be given more weight than La Moncloa's website. The "power vacuum" has never occured, because the previous government has remained as a caretaker cabinet in the interim (but this does not include Rajoy, who was immediately removed from La Moncloa's website as soon as the motion of no confidence succeeded: ha aparecido una nueva pestaña bajo el nombre de 'Gobierno en funciones', con Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría a la cabeza hasta que Pedro Sánchez tome posesión).  Impru20 talk 12:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What you're doing is like using Trump's official Twitter account as an official source to extract data. If you enter LaMoncloa's website you'll notice there are two different sections, one for the Prime Minister and another one for the rest of the Government. The latter is devoted to the Council of Ministers and excludes the Prime Minister - who has his own section - and so it is headed by the Vice-President - before the motion of no confidence, during the motion of no confidence and after it -, which is precisely what the article refers to. If you understand Spanish and read carefully you'll realize the article means Rajoy was the first person to be replaced, exactly at the moment when Sánchez was sworn in, and after that the rest of Ministers remained at their posts and will be substituted once the new Ministers appointed by Sánchez are sworn in, which will happen once the respective Royal Decrees are published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The provided sources are very clear on the 1 June date. La Moncloa website is an official source, being the government website, and your statement of "what you're doing is like using Trump's official Twitter account as an official source to extract data" is rather weird. This is not a Twitter account, this is a country's government official website. So, considering this, and seeing that you need entire walls of texts to try to refute so easily verifiable information, it is obvious that what you are attempting is to re-interpret sources. Please, stop your disruptive editing or I'll have to ask for the page to be protected.  Impru20 talk 22:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I shall be brief. LaMoncloa's website is an official website but has no legal validity. The BOE and the Spanish Constitution do. Please read article 101 of the Constitution carefully: El Gobierno cesa tras la celebración de elecciones generales, en los casos de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria previstos en la Constitución, o por dimisión o fallecimiento de su Presidente.

El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno.

If you don't understand I'll translate it. Don't try to tell me that "the Government" does not refer to the Prime Minister because if you read the rest of the Constitution it obviously does, since the Prime Minister is the Head of the Government: (Art. 98) El Gobierno se compone del Presidente, de los Vicepresidentes, en su caso, de los Ministros y de los demás miembros que establezca la ley. . I demand you to change the article one last time. Please use legal sources from now on. If you insist on your behaviour, I'd be grateful if other Wikipedia admins came and gave their opinion on the validity of the sources I am using (BOE and the Spanish Constitution) and the ones in which you're supporting your position. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The BOE and the Spanish Constitution do not establish that Mariano Rajoy's term ended on 1 June. La Moncloa's website does. You trying to interpret from the BOE and the Constitution that Rajoy's term ended on 1 June is interpreting material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, which is WP:SYNTH and, thus, not allowed. I think this is very simple to understand.  Impru20 talk 08:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You have no idea about law and insist on using a non-legal source to justify your opinion. How may I reach other admins to meet their own points of view? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, do not act as if this article was yours and you were the only one with the voice of reason here (avoid WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). La Moncloa's website is a reliable source, so it is a valid source. Neither the BOE nor the Constitution do state that Rajoy's term ended on 1 June: you are interpreting that yourself, has you have demonstrated both in this dicussion and in your edit summaries. So, trying to imply that his term ended on 2 June because of your particular interpretation of the Constitution and other legal sources which do not say so is original research. I hope I have clarified this enough. If you have issues with the source, bring it up to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, and get feedback on whether this data is reliable or not, but I'd appreciate if you stopped your disruptive editing on the article in the meantime. Thank you.  Impru20 talk 09:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, may someone who knows about law decide which source is more valid to determine when Mariano Rajoy's term ended? According to the Spanish Constitution (Art. 101) and the date the BOE published the Royal Decrees dismissing Rajoy and appointing Sánchez as Prime Minister, it should have ended on June 2, not on June 1: Art. 101 El Gobierno cesa tras la celebración de elecciones generales, en los casos de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria previstos en la Constitución, o por dimisión o fallecimiento de su Presidente.

El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno.

https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/06/02/

However, one user hinders me from making the change (June 2 is stated as the date Rajoy's term ended in all other Wikipedias, although I know different-language Wikipedias are independent from each other) and insists on using a chart which appears in LaMoncloa's official website as a legal criterion to determine the date. However, LaMoncloa's website is not a legal source and that chart's data may have even been extracted from Wikipedia itself - workers who are in charge of the page are obviously not lawyers and their main job is to design a beautiful website with useful information and news about the Government, but it is not their aim to specify and solve subtle legal questions of this kind. Thank you and sorry for insisting. I just would like you to understand that the sources that are being used to support that date are not legally valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * La Moncloa's website is very clear when fixing Rajoy's term end on 1 June 2018, which is the date in which the motion of no confidence succeeded. What you are doing is to re-interpret "legal sources" (as you point them) in order to imply a conclusion (that Rajoy's term ended on 2 June) not stated in any one of them, which is WP:SYNTH. Also, it has not been proven that La Moncloa's website, the official website of the Government of Spain, is not a valid source.
 * Nonetheless, even using "Article 101 of the Constitution" as you do, it clearly says El Gobierno cesa (...) en los casos de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria previstos en la Constitución. This is, the government is removed after losing parliamentary confidence, which in this case happened on 1 June.  Impru20 talk 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Come on! You are re-interpreting legal sources. Read carefully. The official version in English says: The Government shall resign after the holding of general elections, in the event of loss of parliamentary confidence as provided in the Constitution, or on the resignation or death of the President. 2. The outgoing Government shall continue as acting body until the new Government takes office.

That means it shall resign AFTER losing parliamentary confidence, but not IMMEDIATELY after it, because according to the second part of the article, IT SHALL CONTINUE AS AN ACTING OFFICE UNTIL THE NEW GOVERNMENT TAKES OFFICE (on June 2). Please wait until a new admin who knows about this issue answers. I wrote the new section so that someone else could answer. http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/Hist_Normas/Norm/const_espa_texto_ingles_0.pdf PS. I'll repeat it once again: LaMoncloa's website is an official source, but not a legal source and therefore not valid in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interpreting legal sources is exactly what you are doing. Do your "legal sources" state that Rajoy's term ended on 2 June? They do not. You're putting up text from those sources here to try to imply a conclusion which is not stated in those sources. Please, stop it. Anyone, as I said, even your own source says that the PM is removed after the loss of parliamentary confidence, which happened on 1 June.
 * according to the second part of the article, IT SHALL CONTINUE AS AN ACTING OFFICE UNTIL THE NEW GOVERNMENT TAKES OFFICE). Yes, but this was the rest of the government, not Rajoy (note how Article 101.2 does not require for the outgoing PM to remain in place once lossing parliamentary confidence). Rajoy did not even appear as the acting Prime Minister in La Moncloa's website, and he DID appear as such when he was acting PM from 21 December 2015 to 31 October 2016, so this is significant. Rajoy has not been referred as nor has he showed signs of being an acting PM after the 1 June vote. You are making such an strict interpretation of "legal sources", but you fail to understand the point that a PM does not need to be in office until the next PM takes office. He or she may cease on his/her functions right away.
 * Again, official sources are very clear that Rajoy's term ended on 1 June, so get with it.  Impru20 talk 09:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't get with it if you're wrong. Please do not re-interpret sources. I said it before: "If you don't understand I'll translate it. Don't try to tell me that "the Government" does not refer to the Prime Minister because if you read the rest of the Constitution it obviously does, since the Prime Minister is the Head of the Government: (Art. 98) El Gobierno se compone del Presidente, de los Vicepresidentes, en su caso, de los Ministros y de los demás miembros que establezca la ley. . I demand you to change the article one last time. Please use legal sources from now on. If you insist on your behaviour, I'd be grateful if other Wikipedia admins came and gave their opinion on the validity of the sources I am using (BOE and the Spanish Constitution) and the ones in which you're supporting your position. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)" And of course, he was a caretaker Prime Minister. None of the members of the Government had time to show signs of being at their posts in one single day, but Rajoy WAS the caretaker, outgoing Prime Minister, and as such, he was present at Sánchez's inauguration to ensure a normal transfer of power: http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/especiales-informativos/avance-informativo-toma-posesion-pedro-sanchez-como-presidente-del-gobierno/4621743/

LaMoncloa's website is not an official State source, but a Government source, and as such, it may not be neutral. It is handled by individuals who serve the Government, and was immediately transferred to the Socialists once the motion of no confidence was successful and the power shift was imminent. You can't use that as a valid source. He did appear as Prime Minister in 2016 because no other Prime Minister had been elected. The website does not reflect legal changes at a real rate; it's managed by mere workers who do not intend to serve as a legal source - they just changed the information given a bit before Sánchez's appointment was official because the power shift was imminent, not because it had already been made. He may cease on his/her functions if he resigns, but Rajoy didn't resign. Sáenz de Santamaría did not act as a caretaker Prime Minister, and you will find no legal source stating that.
 * Again, stop re-interpreting sources. La Moncloa's website states that Rajoy's term ended on 1 June, so it is 1 June. It is not a party's website (also, the date was added there before the PSOE took power), and yes, it is an official state and government source, so your complains have no place here. I told you to seek advice on La Moncloa's website on WP:RS and you did not, instead copy-pasting your complains there. Again, do not WP:SYNTH: neither the Constitution nor the BOE nor any other legal source establishes that Rajoy's term ended on 1 June, because those are legal texts and, as such, are meant for a generality of situations, not to cover specific situations. 1 June is the specific Rajoy's term end date, and it is what the official sources state. If you bring doubts about La Moncloa's reliability, then bring it to the correct place (which is not this talk page) and seek advice on whether it is valid or not, but stop reinterpreting laws to try to get your own, particular opinion.  Impru20 talk 10:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't even know the difference between the State and the Government. It's a legal concept. Of course it's not a party website, but the Government's website is managed by the party which supports the Government, not by independent State servers and lawyers. I think someone who knows about this should help us solve the problem. I have already asked there and I'm waiting for an answer. The Constitution is meant for a generality of situations, but you should know Royal Decrees published in BOE are meant to cover specific situations according to the general provisions fixed in the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Of course, the date a Prime Minister resigns and is substituted by another must be covered by legal sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the Government's website is managed by the party which supports the Government No, it isn't, unless you may provide sources that support such a claim. In any case, the date of 1 June was added still under the PP administration, and has been maintained under the PSOE administration (which modified Sánchez's term start date from 1 June to 2 June, but did leave Rajoy's date untouched), so I do not know what you are trying to mean here. There seems to be consensus on Rajoy's term end date being 1 June, which is not conflicting with Sánchez's term starting on 2 June. Note how Rajoy's acting government, without Rajoy, has remained in office until 7 June, well into Sánchez's term.
 * What you asked in RS is the exact same issue you presented here and that's not the place for it. You questioned the validity of La Moncloa's website, so you should have asked on it there (which is the place for). You did not do that.
 * Also, you may please stop being so disgusting so as to make reference to me personally. You do not know what I do know and what I do not know. Thank you.  Impru20 talk 10:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/Paginas/es_AvisoLegal.aspx "Aviso legal www.lamoncloa.gob.es es un dominio en internet de la titularidad del Ministerio de la Presidencia (CIF S-2811001-C). Complejo de la Moncloa 28071 Madrid. Tfno.: 91.321.4000.

El uso del sitio web implica la expresa y plena aceptación de las condiciones aquí expuestas.

Su contenido es meramente informativo y carece de efectos jurídicos vinculantes para la Administración."

May I translate it for you?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be impolite, it's just I'm trying to explain something to you and you insist on making assertions that contradict basic legal principles. I have already asked a short question in the talk page and I'm waiting for an answer.

We have already talked about the rest of what you've said. The rest of Rajoy's government has logically remained in office after Rajoy was dismissed because no new Ministers can be sworn in before the Prime Minister, so it's pretty logical that the Prime Minister will be the first to take office and will later appoint his new ministers. Rajoy's end of term on 1 June is conflicting with Sánchez's term beginning a day later because there cannot be a power void. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And since it says the website belongs to and depends on the Ministry of the Presidency, it is managed by people appointed by the Ministry of the Presidency, whose head is in turn appointed by the Head of the Government, Secretary General of the Socialist Party. They are called freely-appointed workers (cargos de libre designación). I'm just answering your question but anyway this is not important. It's administrative law.
 * May I translate it for you? Possibly, since it does not say that the party in government does control the website, so I'm intrigued on where such a reference is.
 * The rest of Rajoy's government has logically remained in office after Rajoy was dismissed. This contradicts your earlier claim that references to the Government DID include the Prime Minister. It is obvious that the Government may not include the PM, specially if it is an acting body. Rajoy ceased being PM on 1 June; the rest of his government remained until 7 June. Nothing wrong here.
 * We have already talked about the rest of what you've said. Surely, but so do we have talked about everything you're saying here from your very first comment.
 * Rajoy's end of term on 1 June is conflicting with Sánchez's term beginning a day later because there cannot be a power void. It is not conflicting because such a situation would not mean the existence of a power void (unless you could source it. Could you?). The acting government (without Rajoy) filled such a "void". Rajoy ceased being PM on 1 June, Sánchez took office on 2 June, and in the meantime the acting government with Santamaría at the head was still in place. I do not know where is the issue nor why you intend on reinterpreting ALL sources to try to imply that if we do not put Rajoy on 2 June, there would be a power vacuum. Obviously that is not the case.  Impru20 talk 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Administrative law. I said it below. I mean people freely appointed by party members control the website, but that's not the issue, I insist. 2. It does not contradict my earlier information - the Government includes the Prime Minister, so article 101 means the Government will continue as an acting body until the new Government takes office. Once the new Prime Minister takes office, the outgoing Prime Minister will stop being Prime Minister, and once the rest of Ministers take office, the outgoing Ministers will stop being Ministers. This is to ensure there is no legal void in any of the Departments. 3. Yes, and it's pretty obvious that you have now realized you're wrong but you don't want to recognize your mistake, and so you are beating around the bush. 4. There cannot be a power void as asserted in the section 101 of the Constitution. The outgoing Government shall continue as acting body until the new Government takes office. Et voilà: Elaboración del precepto

Los motivos de cese del Gobierno y el Gobierno en funciones aparecían ya en el Anteproyecto elaborado por la Ponencia, estableciendo su art. 98.1 que el Gobierno cesaba tras la celebración de elecciones generales, en caso de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria, o por dimisión de su Presidente. En el primer caso, el Gobierno continuaba en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno (art. 98.2), mientras que en el supuesto de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria o de dimisión del Presidente, los demás miembros del Gobierno continuaban en funciones hasta que tomara posesión un nuevo Gobierno (art. 98.3). El texto se modificó por la aprobación de sendas enmiendas de los Grupos Socialista y Comunista en el Congreso. La primera proponía refundir los párrafos 2 y 3, mientras la segunda pedía la inclusión del fallecimiento del Presidente del Gobierno como causa del cese del Gobierno. El texto que aparece en el art. 93 del Informe de la Ponencia de 17 de abril de 1978 decía que "1. El Gobierno cesa tras la celebración de elecciones generales, en caso de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria, o por dimisión, fallecimiento o incapacidad de su Presidente.2. El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno". El texto siguió inalterado en el resto del proceso constituyente hasta que la Comisión Mixta le dio la redacción definitiva, aclarando que los supuestos de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria son "los previstos en la Constitución" y suprimiendo la referencia a la incapacidad del Presidente como causa del cese del Gobierno.

Desarrollo legislativo

El desarrollo legislativo del párrafo 2 del art. 101 CE se contiene en el art. 21 de la Ley 50/1997, de 27 de noviembre, del Gobierno, modificada por Ley 30/2003, de 13 de octubre. En ese artículo, después de recordar en el párrafo 1 los supuestos constitucionales de cese del Gobierno, contiene en su apartado 2 la misma previsión que el art. 101.2 CE, es decir, que el Gobierno cesante continúa en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno, pero añade algo de gran importancia porque esa continuidad de produce "con las limitaciones establecidas en esta Ley". En efecto, según el párrafo 3 del artículo y de forma genérica, "el Gobierno en funciones facilitará el normal desarrollo del proceso de formación del nuevo Gobierno y el traspaso de poderes al mismo y limitará su gestión al despacho ordinario de los asuntos públicos, absteniéndose de adoptar, salvo casos de urgencia debidamente acreditados o por razones de interés general, cuya acreditación expresa así lo justifique, cualesquiera otras medidas". Por lo que se refiere al Presidente del Gobierno en funciones, el párrafo 4 señala las facultades que no podrá ejercer: proponer al Rey la disolución de alguna de las Cámaras, o de las Cortes Generales, plantear la cuestión de confianza, o proponer al Rey la convocatoria de un referéndum consultivo. Aclarando la cláusula genérica del párrafo 3, el apartado 5 establece que el Gobierno en funciones no podrá aprobar el Proyecto de Ley de Presupuestos Generales del Estado ni presentar proyectos de ley al Congreso de los Diputados o, en su caso, al Senado. Por último, el párrafo 6 del citado art. 21 señala que "las delegaciones legislativas otorgadas por las Cortes Generales quedarán en suspenso durante todo el tiempo que el Gobierno esté en funciones como consecuencia de la celebración de elecciones generales".

I may translate it if you want. It's the official Parliament's website (http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/sinopsis/sinopsis.jsp?art=101&tipo=2). The text's written by lawyers. It explains here that the original draft of section 101 looked at removing the Prime Minister once the motion of no confidence succeeded, and leaving the rest of the Government as an acting body until the new Government took office. However, that draft was changed and the final re-writing does NOT specify anything regarding that provision. It also explains that the whole Government DOES continue to act as a ruling body but has very limited functions, until the new Government (first the Prime Minister and then the Ministers he appoints) takes office. If Sáenz de Santamaría had acted as a caretaker Prime Minister for a day, it should have been published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 * If that is not an issue, then I dunno why you brought it here in the first place. Even if that was the case (which you have not sourced), we would have seen two party administrations respecting Rajoy's term date end as 1 June 2018. So, under your own presumption that it is parties managing the website (which, again, has not been sourced or proven), that would be an argument against you.
 * I'm a Spaniard. I obviously know Spanish so do not try to tell me that "I may translate it if I wish", because I perfectly understand all of it.
 * the whole Government DOES continue to act as a ruling body. The whole government without the Prime Minister. Or are you implying that Rajoy was still acting PM until 7 June, which is the date in which the remainder of his government remained in acting capacity? It is obvious that you must separate the figure of the Prime Minister from that of the rest of his government.
 * Again, I cannot see where is it said that Mariano Rajoy's term ended on 2 June. We're going in circles here: you can only put up text from different websites and then re-interpret it so as to try to imply that Rajoy's term ended on 2 June, but such a claim is not contained in none of the sources of text you bring. I repeat, that is WP:SYNTH. Nothing of what you bring does contradict the fact of Rajoy's term ending on 1 June. And if it was so clear that Rajoy's term ended on 2 June, you would not have any issue in bringing a source that clearly establishes it as such, instead of adding entire walls of text here re-interpreting what legal sources say.
 * Look, this would be very easy to solve by contacting La Moncloa's website themselves and asking them on whether such a date is wrong. Contact them and present your arguments to them. If the date is wrong as you point out, then they should modify it and we would follow suit in Wikipedia. Otherwise, this is just a waste of time here.  Impru20 talk 11:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You see? You're unable to contradict my arguments. Remember: the Government includes the Prime Minister (art.98), so article 101 means the Government will continue as an acting body until the new Government takes office. Once the new Prime Minister takes office, the outgoing Prime Minister will stop being Prime Minister, and once the rest of Ministers take office, the outgoing Ministers will stop being Ministers. This is to ensure there is no legal void in any of the Departments.

There would be no conspiracy in parties preferring to mark 1 June as Rajoy's end of term date. It's just those who manage the website are not lawyers, they are workers who know how to manage a website, but they are not a LEGAL SOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue with "your arguments" is that those have nothing to do with the issue at hand. You're re-interpreting sources. It is not needed to reply you with a wall of text as you do just to point out to you that you're synthesising. You see, if you think your arguments are so strong, contact La Moncloa yourself and expose these arguments to them. If their date is wrong, they shall rectify it (as they did for Sánchez's date, which previously figured as 1 June). If not, then the issue will be solved, but I'm sorry that Wikipedia is not the place for entering into the interpretation of laws. For further information, check the policies on WP:RS and WP:OR. Cheers.  Impru20 talk 12:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

LaMoncloa's box, the source you're using, has obviously been extracted from Spanish Wikipedia, since there are dates which don't match with real data and are conflicting - there are some PMs whose end of term date is the date when the Decree was signed by the King, and others whose end of term date is the date when the Decree was published in the BOE (all former Spanish PMs but Suárez ceased in their functions through the same procedure, so there is an obvious contradiction). It's not a valid source. Besides, please consider this: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2018-7402 En cuanto a la experiencia en la aplicación del art. 101.1 CE hay que decir que el cese del Gobierno sólo ha tenido lugar tras la celebración de las distintas elecciones generales que se han convocado desde 1979 y por la dimisión del Presidente Adolfo Suárez en enero de 1981. En este último caso, hay que decir que esa dimisión no se publicó oficialmente y sólo con motivo del nombramiento del nuevo Presidente, Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo, se aprobó el Real Decreto 249/1981, de 25 de febrero, en el que se hace constar que se "formaliza el fin de sus funciones". Ese Real Decreto fue, incorrectamente, refrendado por el Ministro de Justicia, anomalía que se repitió con el cese del Presidente Calvo Sotelo tras las elecciones de 28 de octubre de 1982, refrendado por el Presidente del Congreso (Real Decreto 3286/1982, de 1 de diciembre). ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Con posterioridad, acertadamente, el Presidente del Gobierno ha refrendado su propio cese!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/sinopsis/sinopsis.jsp?art=101&tipo=2

This means he can't have possibly been automatically removed once the motion of no confidence succeeded because he was acting as PM when the Royal Decree was signed, and he was the one that - along with the King - signed the Decree, which entered into force when it was published, on June 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * has obviously been extracted from Spanish Wikipedia. Well, this is another unsourced interpretation of yours.
 * all former Spanish PMs but Suárez ceased in their functions through the same procedure. Rajoy is the first PM to have been ousted through a motion of no confidence. Obviously not "the same procedure".
 * This means he can't have possibly been automatically removed once the motion of no confidence succeeded because he was acting as PM when the Royal Decree was signed. This is your own assumption, but no source shows Rajoy did indeed remained in an acting capacity.
 * You see, if you do think such a source has serious flaws and do think your legal arguments are strong, present these to them so that they modify their table. Otherwise, this is just going around in circles, because your attempts at discrediting La Moncloa's website have been unsourced so far and based on mere presumptions and on your own thoughts; and your interpretations of laws, while noteworthy, are not enough to constitute valid sources of content under Wikipedia standards. So we will be stuck in this situation until La Moncloa itself clarifies it.  Impru20 talk 12:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the mistakes the box contains are the same than those in the Spanish Wikipedia. All FORMER, I meant, all the PMs before Rajoy (whom I know is now a former PM, but it could be easily understood if you put it into context) If he hadn't remained in his acting capacity, he couldn't have signed the Decree. That's pretty logical. By the way, how does this thing work? Will no one else answer?
 * Again, this is your own presumption. All of your arguments are based on your own, personal presumptions. Please, provide direct sources showing your actual claims or if you can't (as it seems to be the case), contact La Moncloa itself through their contact data for them to correct these issues if these are really mistakes. We cannot make alternative interpretations of official sources nor making mere presumptions to invalidate official sources because these do not show the data you would like them to show. Again, contact them if this issue is so pressing.  Impru20 talk 12:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you think someone who's not the PM can sign Royal Decrees as the PM? Are you saying it is my presumption that someone who's no longer the PM can sign Royal Decrees as the PM? Is this serious? Have you read the signature in the Decree carefully? Can you sign Royal Decrees as the PM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Decree was signed on 1 June, not 2 June. On 1 June Rajoy was still PM, so he still could sign the Decree in such a capacity.
 * Can you sign Royal Decrees as the PM? Obviously not, as I've never been PM. Can you please contact La Moncloa to either correct or stand by their version of the box? I guess you can do that.  Impru20 talk 12:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, he must have signed the Decree after losing the motion of no confidence, so that means he was still the PM after that and was not automatically removed after the motion of no confidence succeeded, which contradicts your whole reasoning. I think the Spanish Constitution is a direct source for this you asked me. If you reject it as a valid source, you'll be saying the Constitution can't be used as a source for Wikipedia, which would be quite worrying, because regarding this subject no source is more reliable. Art. 62: Corresponde al Rey d) Proponer el candidato a Presidente del Gobierno y, en su caso, nombrarlo, así como poner fin a sus funciones en los términos previstos en la Constitución.

Art. 64: Los actos del Rey serán refrendados por el Presidente del Gobierno y, en su caso, por los Ministros competentes. La propuesta y el nombramiento del Presidente del Gobierno, y la disolución prevista en el artículo 99, serán refrendados por el Presidente del Congreso.

This means he was the PM when he signed the Decree.
 * You are just going around in circles here repeating the same information as before, and now you're providing Constitution articles which are entirely unrelated from the topic in question. The Spanish Constitution does not provide whether Rajoy's term ended on 1 June or 2 June. Rajoy was still PM on 1 June: that is not the issue here, but on whether his term ended on that day or on the following day.
 * Please, again I ask you to contact La Moncloa so that they may correct their box if it is really wrong, or provide further input on this issue.  Impru20 talk 12:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2018/06/02/actualidad/1527918278_189826.html https://www.eldiario.es/politica/BOE-nombramiento-Pedro-Sanchez-Gobierno_0_777972243.html http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2018/06/02/5b1237ad46163f8b2a8b45e8.html http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20180602/444002616755/boe-pedro-sanchez-presidente-cese-rajoy.html http://www.abc.es/espana/abci-publica-cese-rajoy-y-nombramiento-sanchez-201806020830_noticia.html http://cadenaser.com/ser/2018/06/02/politica/1527924001_915647.html

LA SER: El Boletín Oficial del Estado publica este sábado los tres Reales Decretos que oficializan el relevo al frente del Gobierno. El primero de ellos es el que nombra como presidente a Pedro Sánchez. Los otros dos recogen el cese de Mariano Rajoy y de todos sus ministros.

Para evitar cualquier vacío de poder, el artículo 101.2 de la Constitución establece "El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno". Como Pedro Sánchez ha tomado posesión este sábado, Mariano Rajoy ha sido muy pocas horas presidente en funciones.

The Government does include the Prime Minister: art. 98 of the Spanish Constitution: The Government consists of the President, Vice-Presidents, when applicable, Ministers and other members as may be created by law.

What do you have to say about this? I mean, isn't LASER's source clear enough? I can translate it if you don't understand.

I contacted LaMoncloa but they answered they don't deal with information about the website. LaMoncloa's address is used to contact with the Government of Spain to solve issues related with the Government action, so you can insist and contact them if you want, but you'll probably get the same answer.
 * Most of your own sources establish 1 June as the end of Rajoy's term. You asked for comments from other users and you already got them at WP:RSN. You've were also reverted by another user, who stated you the same view that 1 June was the date given by the sources. Seriously, you should check WP:SYNTH and take it seriously, because you can't come here with your own interpretation of what sources say and try to impose your own views here based on such synthesising.
 * I contacted LaMoncloa but they answered they don't deal with information about the website Well, another user did contact LaMoncloa about Pedro Sánchez's date (which was initially established on 1 June) and they DID reply and DID change it to 2 June, while leaving Rajoy's date unchanged, so I'll have to doubt about this claim of yours.
 * All of this said, please, refrain from engaging in further disruptive editing. Thank you. I will be withdrawing from this discussion as the issue seems solved.  Impru20 talk 16:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for withdrawing at last. Please contact them because I've already received this answer and I will not insist, since they have more serious things to do. It is actually I the one who has to doubt about your own claim that another user received a different answer. I don't know if you don't understand Spanish and/or English or you're unable to recognize your mistake, but I think LASER's source is pretty clear, and you're the one who's interpreting it according to your own point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but La SER does not say Rajoy was still PM on Saturday. And your others sources do show his term ended on 1 June. It is perfectly clear here.
 * It is actually I the one who has to doubt about your own claim that another user received a different answer. Well, not only did I link you such a reference, but also you just made a comment in the discussion in which such situation was discussed. Please, assume good faith (specially when others have sourced their claims) and do not engage in personal attacks as you have done in your last sentence. Thank you.  Impru20 talk 16:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

LASER says the Constitution does not allow a power vacuum to happen and so Rajoy was PM until Sánchez was sworn in. Oh God, you ARE stubborn. Yes, you're right, but after reading your previous discussion with that user I've confirmed my suspicions: you don't want to recognize your mistake for the second time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * La SER does not state Rajoy was still PM on Saturday, 2 June. For the last time, do not engage in personal attacking.  Impru20 talk 17:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It says there was not a power vacuum and Rajoy was the acting PM until Sánchez was sworn in (on June 2). READ AND DON'T MANIPULATE. And please don't write walls of mostly irrelevant text in the RSN, you'll only discourage others from reading the discussion and answering. I guess that's not what you're trying to do, since I accept good faith.

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

title: Talk:Mariano Rajoy


text:
Charles Lockwood

Charles Lockwood may refer to:

 * Charles Lockwood (author) (1948–2012)
 * Charles Andrews Lockwood (1890–1967), United States Navy admiral
 * Charles A. Lockwood (politician), Oregon politician in 35th Oregon Legislative Assembly
 * Charles Barrett Lockwood (1856–1914), British surgeon and anatomist
 * Charles Clapp Lockwood (1877–1958), New York politician and judge
 * Lynching of Charles Lockwood (d. 1886), American farmhand possibly lynched in Connecticut

title: Charles Lockwood


text:
Octabenzone

Octabenzone (Spectra-Sorb UV 531, MPI Milestab 81) is a UV absorber/screener. It is used to protect polymers (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride) against damage by UV light.

title: Octabenzone


text:
Claire Goose

Claire Goose is a Scottish actress who first gained attention playing Tina Seabrook on the long-running BBC One medical drama Casualty (1997–2000). Her other roles include DS "Mel" Silver in Waking the Dead (2000–2007), Insp. Rachel Weston in The Bill (2008–2009), and Jane Kennedy in The Coroner (2015–2016), for which she was awarded "Best Acting Performance" by the RTS. She narrated the Sky One reality series Road Wars from 2009 to 2010. Her stage credits include The Girl Who Fell (West End, 2019).

Early life
Born in Edinburgh, Goose was raised in Dersingham, England, where her father worked as a general practitioner. She has an elder sister, Caroline, a nursery nurse, and an elder brother, Duncan, who started the One Drinks company. Goose is a former pupil of Wisbech Grammar School, and a graduate of the Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts.

Career
Early theatre roles included Addicted to Love, and Hitting Home at the Man in the Moon Theatre. She also appeared in early adverts for Impulse women's body spray. Goose played a main role as nurse Tina Seabrook in Casualty, for no less than 80 episodes between 1997 and 2000. In 1998, she was nominated Most Popular Newcomer at the 4th National Television Awards, for her character in the series.

From 2000 to 2004, she played the role of DC/DS Amelia 'Mel' Silver for four series of Waking the Dead.

From August 2008, she played Sergeant, later Inspector Rachel Weston in ITV's The Bill. The same year she played a leading role as undercover cop Rebecca Ryan/Margaret in the British gangster film Bad Day.

In 2011, she appeared in BBC1 drama Exile with John Simm and, in 2015, appeared in the fourth series of Death in Paradise.

From 2015, she starred as the titular character Jane Kennedy, in the BBC Birmingham daytime drama The Coroner, set in the fictional coastal town of Lighthaven in South Devon. The series ran to 20 episodes. She won Best acting performance at the 2016 Royal Television Society (Midlands awards).

In 2019, she played the lead role of Thea in "The Girl Who Fell" by Sarah Rutherford at Trafalgar Studios. From 2022, she has starred as Steph in two series of the CBBC teen science-fiction series Silverpoint.

Personal life
In the 1990s, Goose dated her Casualty co-star Jonathan Kerrigan. In 2007, she married TV producer Craig Woodrow. Together they have two daughters, Amelia and Eveline.

title: Claire Goose


text: Category:Communes of Côtes-d'Armor

title: Category:Communes of Côtes-d'Armor


text:
Imperial College Boat Club

Imperial College Boat Club is the rowing club for Imperial College and has its boat house on the River Thames on the Putney embankment, London, United Kingdom. It was founded in 1919. The alumni also run a boat club which is known as the Queen's Tower Boat Club and both crews occasionally row together as a composite in competition.

History
The boat club was housed from 1919 in Thames Rowing Club but has had its own boathouse since 1938.

The club has been successful in competitions, with many wins at Henley Royal Regatta including in 2013 with victory in The Prince Albert Challenge Cup event. The club has been home to numerous National Squad oarsmen and women and is open to students of Imperial College London.

The Gold medal winning GB 8+ at the 2000 Sydney Olympics had been based at Imperial College's recently refurbished boathouse and included 3 alumni of the college along with their coach Martin McElroy.

Coaching
The most well-known of Imperial College Boat Club's coaches is Bill Mason. Bill is a former Olympic oarsman himself and for many years was head coach and director of rowing at Imperial College Boat Club. In that time he was responsible for numerous Henley Royal Regatta and Henley Women's Regatta wins. He coached athletes at the club from novices up to international and developed the club substantially during his time in charge.

Until 2008, the head coach was Simon Cox who, after taking over from Simon Dennis in 2005, went on to coach the Henley Royal Regatta winning crew in 2006, before taking up a position with Swiss Rowing. His replacement was Olympic Gold Medallist Steve Trapmore who coached the club until September 2010, when he moved on to coach Cambridge University Boat Club. Don McLachlan took over from 2010 until leaving in April 2013 to become lead coach at Rowing Ireland, just before the club won Henley Royal Regatta again a few months later.

title: Imperial College Boat Club


text:
Talk:Chimes of Freedom (song)

Not song-stub
This is NOT just a song-stub. The book by Marquesee is a fairly significant review of Dylan's early work and politics and should be easily traceable. What is gained by falsely particularising this to a song-stub? Linuxlad 10:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a song. Therefore, it gets a song stub. It's also a book, as you pointed out, so it gets a lit-stub as well. It should be noted that the book is actually titled Chimes of Freedom:The Politics of Bob Dylan's Art, and should have its own article at that name, as it is an important work.
 * Actually, a quick search shows that there is a substub article of that name - I've just wikified it a little. You might want to move some of the information from this article to it. See Chimes of Freedom: The Politics of Bob Dylan's Art. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 10:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see this new creation as a gain - sorry. Titles that long take ages to rediscover (espcially since you've got to get the Capitalisation right). But I leave it to others to sort out with some more appropriate redirects. When you've all settled down I'll see if there's anything I can usefully add (I have the book :-))Linuxlad 10:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AnotherSide.jpg
Image:AnotherSide.jpg is being used on this article. 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. 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 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead and covers
Why does the lead jump into who covered it? That's not as important as the song itself, and Dylan's original version. I have my doubts if whether or not should be in the lead at all. Perhaps just a blurb at the end of the article. It is totally trivializing how significant this song is by immediately talking about covers. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed tag
I have removed the "refimprove" tag from this article suggesting that it "needs additional citations for verification". This is because I have edited the article extensively and inserted multiple inline references to remedy this problem. Kohoutek1138 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:259553

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chimes of Freedom (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090808203644/http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:259553

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chimes of Freedom (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604031642/http://www.allmovie.com/dvd/the-complete-monterey-pop-festival-3-discs-criterion-collection-30998/menu to http://www.allmovie.com/dvd/the-complete-monterey-pop-festival-3-discs-criterion-collection-30998/menu

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Chimes of Trinity
I added this paragraph to the Bob Dylan's Version section:

'Dave Van Ronk gives this account of the song's origin: "Bob Dylan heard me fooling around with one of my grandmother's favorites, 'The Chimes of Trinity,' a sentimental ballad about Trinity Church, that went something like Tolling for the outcast, tolling for the gay/Tolling for the [something something], long since passed away/As we whiled away the hours, down on old Broadway/And we listened to the chimes of Trinity. He made me sing it for him a few times until he had the gist of it, then reworked it into 'Chimes of Freedom.' Her version was better." '

Van Ronk's preference for the earlier version is interesting but not of overwhelming significance, just as it's interesting but not of overwhelming significance that Dylan learned (according to this account) the original from Van Ronk: Dylan might just as well have learned the song from someone else. What does deserve greater emphasis in the article, however, is that "Chimes of Freedom" is essentially the same song as Michael J. Fitzpatrick's "Chimes of Trinity" of 1895, as you can easily verify for yourself by googling "Chimes of Trinity" and looking at the printed music or listening to it performed on Youtube. TheScotch (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chimes of Freedom (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520112416/http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/chimes-of-freedom to http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/chimes-of-freedom

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chimes of Freedom (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517203923/http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/multiarticlesub.aspx?csid1=121&csid2=9&fid1=30889 to http://exclaim.ca/articles/multiarticlesub.aspx?csid1=121&csid2=9&fid1=30889

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Reception
I can see a lot of effort has been placed into making the reception of the article. I'm just having a bit of trouble seeing some of its relevance. Maybe context is missing or I just need a clue-level adjustment. For example, when Ian Bell goes talking about those manuscripts, it's not even clear what the correlation to the song is. Those aren't lyrics to "Chimes" as far as I can tell. Second thing about him is that I'm not seeing much praise when he starts that actual review of the song, using words like "overburdened", "failed to ring", etc. Something within that first line should be fleshed out beyond "originality". Last line for Bell is also unsourced. I may have more to say later.  danny music editor  oops 15:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your queries about the Bell comments have some validity, so I've tweaked Bell a bit in an attempt to make his view of the song clearer. When I have time I'll have another look at Bell's book and try to improve. Mick gold (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the 4 biographers singled out in that section, I think it is Dalton who has the longest passages in his book which deal with 'Chimes'. I'll try to add some. Please comment or re-edit as needed. For example, Dalton states: "The scenes in 'Chimes of Freedom' are lit up as if by strobe light--the way the Bible was written, they say, in brilliantly illuminated pictures. Dylan uses a cinematic method of writing, like Kerouac's--with slow motion jump cuts, and freeze frames." JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had another look at Bell's book and re-written the summary of Bell's view. I can't help thinking if you look at this article through the remorseless critical gaze of the WP:FAC process, there is a problem in having a section called "Interpretation" and a section called "Chimes" among Dylan's biographers." Surely Heylin is a Dylan biographer as well as a critic? I don't see a big difference between the Dylan commentary of Mike Marqusee and the commentary of Ian Bell. I think editors might suggest that you have one section on interpretation of "Chimes" rather than two. Mick gold (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's persuasive and I have merged the sections which leads to a group of 8 effective commentaries on the song. Possibly you could comment if 8 commentators is sufficient. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I can't help thinking it looks rather programmatic. The article now has 8 critics giving their interpretation of the song, with each name as sub-section heading. Try to look at other songs that are WP:FA such as "Like a Rolling Stone", "The Long and Winding Road", and I think you'll see the interpretation and comments on the song are written as prose commentary, and not broken into named sections. Mick gold (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The most recent version of the article now posted is trying to follow the outline of "Like a Rolling Stone" here with the Release section now before the newly titled "Reception and critics" section, which retitles the previous "Chimes among the biographers" title. The section devoted to Covers of the song now follows all the other sections of the article to be the new final section. The current version of the outline resembles more closely the "Like a Rolling Stone" model if that's seen as a significant enhancement to the Table of Contents. Should the other sections of "Like a Rolling Stone" be carried over to this article as well for possible development or discussion. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've re-arranged the critical comments in chronological order, because I think there is a progression from Williams and Marquesee as the earliest, to Bell and Dalton as later critics. I'm away from tomorrow so will not be very active in editing this article. Mick gold (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Checking in after a year or so about the article. It seems that this is about as good as the article can get, and the editing looks fairly stable after the additions you made from last time around. Since its as good as it is likely to get then what do you think about doing a possible co-nomination for featured article together. The article looks fairly well edited at this point in time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help out a little in getting this up to FA standard, if you want? I am the second biggest contributor to this page currently. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to step up like that. DannyMusic is no longer editing due to college obligations, and the last item we discussed was considering getting either a screen capture or a short clip from the Clinton inaugural of Dylan doing this song into the article. Since it was a government event, the images or clips might be public domain if you know how to do this type of editing and saving it as Wikipedia media.  JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just starting a new job so I'm afraid I won't have time to be co-nominator for FA. I'll try to keep an eye on it and make constructive contributions if I get time. I've made a few more edits. One suggestion: other FAs have a section called Sources or Bibliography which collects all the sources. See Like a Rolling Stone and The Long and Winding Road as examples. You could make similar section for CoF. I was going to suggest you contact  and  since these two nominated CoF for WP:GA... and Kohoutek1138 has just stepped forward. Good luck. Mick gold (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

FA talk
Hi all, I though we should have a dedicated section on this talk page to discuss the process of getting the article up to FA standard. I've done a little bit of copy editing to the lede and first section of the article today and plan to do more. Something that immediately jumps out at me is that some of the inline citations are in a less that perfect state, so I will attempt to tidy those up over the coming week. Also, there seems to be some confusion about when the road trip that Dylan composed all of, or part of, "Chimes of Freedom" on occurred. Paul Williams says that it was in late January 1964, before Dylan's appearance on Canadian TV on February 1st, but the article (as per Clinton Heylin's Revolution in the Air) says that Dylan's early February visit to Canada was before the road trip. Any suggestions about how we resolve this? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The dating of this seems related to the JFK theory which guides Heylin's account. If the "writing" of the final version of the song is the main issue here, then Heylin says that the preliminary writing of the poems influencing Chimes should be taken into account, which he dates to the month following Dallas before the start of Winter on December 21, 1963. Williams does not seem to be informed by this account however. The question of the dating of the final version and the preliminary poems as reflecting separate dates seems of some importance to this article. The actual writing of the "final version" of the song, as general musical composition goes, could have lasted until the final recording sessions and last minute changes. The preliminary poems seem to have been written between the end of November and before the start of Winter on December 21, 1963. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Lyric
The "Lyric" section of this article is absurd, and it's absurd because it fails to take into account that Dylan arrived at his version of the lyric merely by distorting the lyric of Michael J. Fitzpatrick's 1895 song "The Chimes of Trinity". The refrain of the latter is "As we whiled away the time away/Down on old Broadway/And listened to the chimes of Trinity". The refrain of Dylan's version is "And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing." Notice that in the original "we listened", whereas in Dylan's distortion "we gazed". That's because the function of chimes is to produce a sound, not a picture. Chimes don't "flash"; they ring. There isn't any deep meaning here; Dylan just didn't want to say "Trinity" (too old-fashioned, too churchy), and that was the best substitution he could come up with--and that best happens to be trivially nonsensical. I'm not claiming that my analysis or opinion belongs in the article. I am claiming that any attempt to exlain Dylan's version must reference the original and that any source that does not do this cannot be considered a valid source. TheScotch (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 * "The Chimes of Trinity" continues thus: "Tolling for the outcast/Tolling for the gay/Tolling for the millionaire/And friends long past away." Sound familiar? The music here is exactly the same as in the Dylan version. TheScotch (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 * So, find reliable third-party references that support your analysis and add mention of Fitzpatrick's "The Chimes of Trinity" to the article then. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a robot response that anyone could have written in his sleep--anyone, that is, who neglected to read or couldn't comprehend the last two sentences of my comment above--, and it completely misses the point. We don't need a source to NOT include something in an article. TheScotch (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 * There's no need to be rude. You're moaning about the lyric section being "absurd", but offering nothing of any substance to remedy it. The article aleady mentions Dave Van Ronk's claim that "The Chimes of Trinity" was likely an influence on Dylan's song. If you think the lyric section should go into further detail then find a reliable source that explicitly states how the older song informed Dylan's lyrics and add it to the article. Otherwise, there's not much more to say on the matter. The current contents of the "Lyrics" section is fully supported by reliable refs and are the opinions of noted Dyaln biographers/critics, so there's really no need to delete them, just because you think they're not valid. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 * What are you suggesting should NOT be included in the article based on your comment? I don't see anything in the lyric section that is contradicted  by your comments, even asssuming you can reliably source them. Rlendog (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chimes of Freedom (song)


text:
Keihan Main Line

The Keihan Main Line (京阪本線) is a railway line in Japan operated by Keihan Electric Railway. The line runs between Sanjō Station in Kyoto and Yodoyabashi Station in Osaka. There are through services to the Keihan Ōtō Line and the Keihan Nakanoshima Line. Trains from Kyoto to Osaka are treated as "down" trains, and from Osaka to Kyoto as "up" trains.

Train services
As of March 2022, the following services are operated.
 * Liner (ライナー) (Ln)
 * All cars reserved seating. Trains run "down" in the morning, and "up" in the evening. Weekdays Only.

 * Rapid Limited Express "Rakuraku" (快速特急"洛楽") (RLE)
 * Premium car is reserved seating only

 * Limited Express (特急) (LE)
 * Premium car is reserved seating only

 * Commuter Rapid Express (通勤快急) (CRE) - "down" trains only, on weekday mornings
 * Rapid Express (快速急行) (RE) - premium car is reserved seating
 * Midnight Express (深夜急行) (ME) - "up" trains only (Discontinued in 7/2021)
 * A train departs from Yodoyabashi for Kuzuha at 0:20 a.m. and passes Moriguchishi and Hirakata-kōen.
 * A train departs from Yodoyabashi for Kuzuha at 0:20 a.m. and passes Moriguchishi and Hirakata-kōen.
 * A train departs from Yodoyabashi for Kuzuha at 0:20 a.m. and passes Moriguchishi and Hirakata-kōen.

 * Express (急行) (Ex)
 * Commuter Sub-express (通勤準急) (CSbE) - "down" trains only, on weekday mornings
 * Trains are operated from Demachiyanagi, Kuzuha, Hirakatashi to Yodoyabashi or Nakanoshima in the morning and pass Moriguchishi.

 * Sub-express (準急) (SbE)
 * Semi-express (区間急行) (SmE)
 * Local (普通)
 * Trains stop at all stations.

 * Operation in non-rush hours per hour
 * Limited express: 6 round trips between Yodoyabashi and Demachiyanagi
 * Express: 3 round trips between Yodoyabashi and Kuzuha
 * Sub. express: 3 round trips between Yodoyabashi and Demachiyanagi
 * Local: 6 round trips between Nakanoshima and Kayashima, of which 3 extend to Demachiyanagi

Stations

 * S: Trains stop.
 * s: limited stop
 * |, ↑, ↓: Trains pass.
 * ↑, ↓: Only one direction.
 * ▼: Boarding only in "down" direction.
 * ▲: Boarding only in "up" direction.
 * (M): Stations using melodies composed by musician Minoru Mukaiya in train departure announcements.
 * For train abbreviations, see above.

History
The Temmabashi to Kiyomizu-Gojo section opened as dual track, electrified at 1,500 V DC, in 1910, and was extended to Sanjo in 1915. The Temmabashi to Yodoyabashi section opened in 1963.

The section between Kōrien Station and Hirakata-kōen Station is set to undergo a grade separation process beginning in September 2022. Preliminary works such as land acquisition had already been in progress since 2013. The project aims to eliminate 21 level crossings in the affected section, some of which are closed for up to 40 minutes per hour during the morning and afternoon rush hour. Work is expected to finish by 2027 with the transition to the elevated tracks happening by 2028.

title: Keihan Main Line


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay skinheads

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. (Keep 12 - Delete 9 - Merge and redirect 6) -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gay skinheads
Does it make any sense to have this article? If there's nothing especially noteworthy about gay skinheads as a group, we might as well have articles about, oh, I dunno, gay bakers or gay taxi drivers -- Ferkelparade π 10:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. jni 13:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, it is important to raise awareness of the fact that not everyone who looks like a skinhead is a violent neo-Nazi, a point that is raised at Skinhead. There is indeed a subculture of gay men who from their outward appearance are indistinguishable from Nazi skinheads, but they do not practice or condone violence and hatred (except perhaps, like members of SHARP and ARA, against Nazi/racist skins). They just like the tough-boy look and the attitude. On the other hand, the article as it currently stands does not establish their significance, and is not NPOV ("abusing the skinhead subculture", indeed!). I vote merge and redirect to Skinhead in the hopes that someone will write a paragraph there on the significance of the gay skinhead subsubculture. --Angr 13:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to skinhead wouldn't hurt. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a legitimate member of Template:Skinhead. Keep it; cleanup or expand as necessary. Gay skinhead, singular, might be a more Wikistyle title. Samaritan 15:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . Merge and Redirect to Skinhead. Apart from the POV, the article just says that they are skinheads who just happen to be gay. Are Bisexual skinheads, Tall skinheads and Skinheads who like the color blue all legitimate members of Template:Skinhead?
 * I think the reason why this phenomenon gets attention is because it's curious, sort of like the existence of Log Cabin Republicans -- why would a group of gay people want to be anything like Nazis, who persecuted gay people in concentration camps? For this reason I think it's useful to keep some sort of reference to them on Wikipedia.  I'm not sure that this article as it stands now is compelling enough to keep, but I would support merging with the main article on Skinheads. Katefan0 16:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see notability, and there's always the possibilty this is a subtle attack article. --InShaneee 18:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a valid subculture. I speak from personal knowledge, but a Google search will bear that out. Katefan0 21:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep or merge but needs NPOV work. I think gay skinheads are a significant subculture, unlike gay taxi drivers. Kappa 19:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a peer-reviewed sociological classification, for starters. Wyss 19:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you so sure? It's enough of a phenomenon to draw authorship on the subject, such as Gay Skins: Class, Masculinity and Queer Appropriation, a sociological history of the subculture since the late 1960's. Katefan0 21:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've heard it called rough trade but whatever. Should have said insufficient peer review then. IMHO this is not a helpful (or even meaningful) classification. Wyss 21:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete What's next? Articles on gay punkers, gay rockers, gay postmen? JimmyShelter 20:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and encyclopedic subculture subset. Needs to be renamed in the signular however.--Centauri 21:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless stub, non-encyclopedic. Gamaliel 22:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Notable phenomenon, bad article. Cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 23:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Real subculture of both the gay and skinhead cultures.  RickK 00:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and expand. Significant and notable queer culture. Megan1967 01:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, they are not unrelated concepts - gay skinheads are a distinct and identifiable subculture, certainly encyclopaedic AND definately notable. --Oldak Quill 02:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do they get along with GNAA? Rhobite 18:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) p.s. oops, forgot to sign. thanks katefan0.
 * Above by Rhobite. Katefan0 15:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. At most, it merits a mention in the Skinheads article that some skinheads are gays who have adopted the skinhead style and sometimes congregate with straight skinheads, but who don't necessarily share all their views and behaviours.  If such a mention is made, it should be sourced and quantified (unlike this article).  From the current article, I have no reason to believe that someone didn't just make this up, or if they didn't, that it is more than a few people.  --BM 16:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --BenWilson 17:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. —RaD Man (talk)  21:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article, in its current form, is nothing short of awful. The subject, however, is significant as a subculture.  Keep, but improve.  CJCurrie 02:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, concur with CJCurrie. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to skinhead. --Slowking Man 08:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to skinhead -- as disturbing as it may be to non-skinheads, glbts, and perhaps even to skinheads. sigh HyperZonk 06:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Spinboy 23:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Guanaco 01:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * delete this bullshit! gayskins are NOT Skin! Haha, I've even read articles by gayskins claiming that nazi's hijact the movement. If someone did, it would be those gay creeps!SkaHead 16:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote was above user's first edit. Katefan0 17:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Gayskin" gets 31,800 google hits., more than "gay skinhead" (19,300) . Kappa 17:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User:Dover

No connection to Dover publication

title: User:Dover