1311:
will duplicate information. I'm not proposing any information be duplicated, simply removed from one section and placed in a new one. You could just add a new section to "Preferred Prime
Minister" called "former leaders" and move those who are no longer leaders or being polled there. I have never understood why you think that this means anything would be duplicated. I think there's simply misunderstanding from both of us in regards to each other’s perspective, yours in not understanding my proposal and mine in not understanding how you think it will cause problems. That's why I thought outside input could be useful here.
501:, I entirely disagree. I opened an rfc because I wanted input from other editors rather than just us, I don't consider that disrespectful and I don't see why you should either. I disagree with your assertions regarding what you've said. Most readers don't clink Knowledge links and I don't think assuming "laziness" is helpful. The way I see it we are at an impasse, and that's why I wanted further input from others. You completely disregarded my views regarding misrepresentation and I don't agree with yours and I saw no attempt at a compromise or how we were going to work towards one based off of what you said.
1016:
for "Preferred Prime
Minister" poses no issues at all. Thirdly because, as stated in the discussion above, this article covers relevant political leaders that are polled by sources that are not properly "party leaders"; that is not the article's scope, since prime minister candidates in Spain don't need to be their parties' leaders (something which is very different to what happens in the UK). And finally, because the goal of this RfC (as has been demostrated in the discussion above) is to remove Iglesias from the main table, which is not a NPOV-free reason for an edit of this scale to be conducted.
681:. Do you really think I'd bother to go through all this here on the talk page if I couldn't be bothered to click a link? Come on now, THAT is absurd. I have no sway over who comes here, they may agree with you, or me, or neither. I'm just looking for other views on the matter and what potential compromises there might be that people may like to put forward. It’s not for you to be able to dictate when an rfc can and cannot be opened. Its perfectly reasonable to open an rfc when a discussion has been open for a week and only one other editor has responded.
1042:
this page are or were party leaders or presidents of at least one party or another as far as I can see. I'm not proposing any information be removed from the page or duplicated, simply that some information is removed from one section and the same information placed in a more relevant section. I'm open to other ways to reorganise the information on the page other than this way. I just don't think the current way the information is laid out offers the most clarity to those unengaged or unknowledgeable in
Spanish politics and could be made clearer.
389:, firstly, please make sure to ping editors in replies, as I have done with you here, otherwise other editors may not be aware of your response without going back and checking and some people like myself work across a lot of pages on this platform, so it’s hard to keep track of everywhere we've left a post. The problem is that its outdated, misrepresentative of the current leadership, and could lead to confusion for those not aware of the current political situation. We must remember the
531:
article covers "party leaders" rather than "political leaders", which is the core of your argument), and have not even addressed such concerns. You cannot accuse me of "not attempting compromise" when it's you the one who has refused to accept or discuss anything else that is not their own view. At this stage, I will obviously maintain (and defend) my stance, which I see as the right approach to take (and one that is backed by arguments and not by wishes).
519:
with
Knowledge guidelines. What wasn't ok was the way you did it, which was basically to open the RfC at the top of the discussion (though I would rather assume that was plain lack of knowledge on how to do it). The fact that you see "an impasse" when the discussion has barely advanced reaffirms me in my view that you are basically looking for someone to prove you right and impose your views regardless of those that don't agree with you.
419:, I don't tend to automatically ping editors unless I'm certain they may not pay attention to the discussion at hand: this typically happens in user talk discussions that don't take place in both editors' pages but just in one. For discussions in article talk pages that are started by those editors, I frequently assume those editors will concern themselves with keeping an eye on them, though I will ping you from here onwards as you ask.
152:
71:
131:
53:
394:
party leadership pages, like the UK one I linked and move
Iglesias and his polling there, as well as other former party leaders. I have no problem with removing other former party leaders like Casado as well, I'm just not personally as aware of other party leader situations and thought there may be other editors that may want to keep people like him being their leadership was more recent having still led their party this year.
162:
22:
257:
843:
not all) of your issues, so it's not bad faith to state that you did exactly that. You accused me of not seeking a compromise or of we being at an "impasse" when the discussion was just two comments long, so it's not bad faith to state that you are explicitly refusing to compromise on any other that is not your own wishes. Note that accusing others of bad-faithing without any ground
236:
267:
1159:
leader. So no, Ayuso is not the only "outlier" because pollsters do not necessarily poll "party leaders" (something you still keep refusing to acknowledge), which is why this article speaks of "political leaders". I am skipping your personal considerations on me since I want to keep this civil, thank you.
1310:
to specifically be a party leader, that's my fault in not specifying the nuances. I mean it matters that these people should hold a leadership role in some capacity being the article is revolving around "Leadership approval polling". I've addressed your main issue in regards to that fact you think it
1070:
Once again, tables do not list just "party leaders". Yolanda DĂaz or Isabel DĂaz Ayuso are not party leaders, yet some pollsters poll them anyway because they are relevant political leaders. Trying to establish any argument on the basis of "X person is no longer a party leader" is wrong. Besides, the
530:
issue, not everyone else's. Sincerely, you are creating a problem and creating useless generalizations just because you want to see a particular leader out of these tables, which is not a fair conclusion. You have also demonstrated a profound misconception of this article's topic area (i.e. that this
907:
And in the very first reply I said I had no problem with other party leaders being removed, to quote myself, "I have no problem with removing other former party leaders like Casado as well". I have not overlooked what you said, just because I didn't directly respond to them doesn't mean I overlooked
1325:
Oh, you did the whole time: even this RfC's opening statement is worded to specifically refer to "party leaders". I have had to remind you about this like five times before you started accepting that they may not need to be "party" leaders. The article revolves on "political leaders" (it's explicit
1098:
If anything though, and as I told just before and went unaddressed by your reply (I do not know if my comments are being read at this point, since your replies repeteadly seem to ignore things I already spoke about), I can see a reorganisation of the "Approval ratings" section by creating a "Former
823:
Again you seem to be not assuming good faith and really attempting to discredit me. I had no objective of coming here and causing an argument or dictating a certain way or "manipulating". If I were like that I would have just done it, or got people here that I thought might agree with me, I've done
393:
and make things simple and keep any possible confusion to a minimum with clarity. Iglesias leads no party and won't be leading any into the next election. The solution would be to re-work the current setup. As I mentioned, we could create a former party leaders’ section, as has been done with other
1353:
it, and I'm starting to think there are serious reading issues here (that may also explain why this whole affair poses an issue at all to you). I've told you about this like five or six times yet you keep ommitting it. Sincerely, and I don't want to sound disrespectful, but you are wasting my time
1084:
What you propose now is to mutilate tables and break data continuity with Sánchez, Abascal and other leaders that have been in place from the beginning. Seeking so only because someone does not want a particular leader from appearing in the main table is not acceptable. As I told you repeteadly in
1056:
Please, if you have to reply, do so below the comment you are replying to. You are the RfC originator. Indents here are meant only to allow people to voice their opinions, otherwise you would end up flooding the RfC with "reply" indents. As it's merely a procedural and uncontroversial edit, I have
1041:
We wouldn't have to duplicate anything, simply remove the people that are no longer party leaders from the "Preferred Prime
Minister" section and their polling listed there and place it in a separate section. I’m not proposing this be duplicated. All the people in the "Preferred Prime Minister" of
1015:
has no "former party leader" section for "Preferred Prime
Minister" (it pertains just to Approval ratings), so this is based on a wrong premise to start with. Secondly, because if something like that is done it would mean an unnecessary duplication of tables and of content, when the current format
842:
and revolved it around the figure of
Iglesias until I pointed to you that Casado also existed, so it's not bad faith to assume that removing Iglesias was your goal all along. You have repeteadly overlooked my arguments and refused to reply to those, when addressing those would have solved most (if
574:
found that "in the
English Knowledge, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of
518:
You asked me for a response, which I gave, then you basically overlooked it by opening a RfC (basically, because you wanted to look for someone that did say something you like, as what I said did not meet your expectations). That's disrespectful with the guy you just asked for a reply, but it's ok
434:
the party's leaders (i.e. Ayuso or
Yolanda DĂaz). Others overlook actual party leaders (Belarra). The scope of the article covers leadership polling on "political leaders" in general (not necessarily "current" "party" leaders; those that were notorious political leaders throughout this time period
1127:
I was very specific to mention in my edit party leaders and presidents. Also, Yolanda DĂaz leads Sumar, while Isabel DĂaz Ayuso is the president of the People's Party of Madrid, the latter of which is seemingly the only outlier in perhaps not exactly conforming to "party leader", depending on how
742:
told you to open a RfC if you wished, I just asked you to do so correctly. You are seriously unable to receive feedback or accept any comment that is contrary to your wishes, while you claim it's others that don't want to "compromise" with you (your meaning of "compromise" being something akin to
469:
you both refuse to explain why this would be "helpful" at all (as of now, this looks like you creating a whole problem because you wanted to exclude a particular politician from the table) and overlook the fact that each country may have its own particularities due to differing political systems.
1201:
leaders or not doesn't matter either way in regards to the issue I highlighted. I'm simply proposing the information be moved because those such as Casado and Iglesias are not leaders in any capacity anymore and are no longer being polled. If the person has a sustained period where they are not
1158:
Sumar is not a party; as of now, it's an umbrella organisation/platform which is not even clear how will contest the next general election. Belarra is Podemos's actual leader and she is not even mentioned in most polls. FeijĂło was also polled pre-1 April, when he was still not officially the PP
422:
I don't see where the confusion problem is at all, really. Political leaders are no longer polled when they retire, so if no more polls are shown on that leader it's fairly easy to assume that polls no longer assume that leader as relevant. If any reader may have the slight doubt on the current
600:
You are reducing this to the absurd. This study refers to useless links resulting from a tendency by many users to overlink everything. You obviously don't need to access a link redirecting you to concepts such as "blue" or "sky", because you normally will know what those things are; Knowledge
423:
status of that leader, then the leader's WP article (all of which are linked) is the place to check, not this article (indeed, I find puzzling that we have to duplicate tables and data just because of some laziness in clicking a link to that person's article to check out that info by yourself.
365:
Cannot see any issue with the current setup, really. We cannot do what you propose without duplicating some of the tables, and tables in the "Approval rating" sections are ordered by party size (and, within the same party, the most recent leader over former ones. So this is already taken into
1248:
currently leaders "in any capacity" (which is not the point, either, but anyway...). They have been relevant political leaders at some point during this parliamentary term, so that already makes them worthy of inclusion. Plus what you suggest would mutilate the tables for the
608:
What you claim here is that you cannot know if the people listed in this article are the current party leaders or not (which is not even relevant for the article's scope), pose it as a general problem for everyone else and then deducing that links are not a solution because
619:
I mean, with all due respect, but I must reaffirm myself: being lazy to click strategically placed links is not an argument for removing sourced data or mutilating it so that a particular leader is given less prominence (I should remind that this discussion is still called
738:. You MUST open a new section. I'm not going to make you the favor of reverting you again, so that it's others that may point the manipulation you made to this discussion (by inserting a brand new statement above the previous comments) to you. Btw, I
1085:
the discussion above, I do not and will not agree with that under that reasoning. My proposal for "reorganising" the page is to leave it mostly as it is, since I do not see any need for any "reorganisation" that seeks to solve auto-created problems.
1202:
polled and no longer hold any leadership in any capacity it is then in which I would propose they be moved. Whether or not they are a party leader, president, or leader of an umbrella organisation or platform is irrelevant in such a proposition.
464:
What you did was an entirely inappropriate (and disrespectful) way to open a RFC, overwriting an existing discussion and overlooking an editor you just asked for his opinion without even caring to address his concerns. Also, when you say that
435:
are noteworthy as well). It's sources which determine who are the political leaders they poll, obviously. The article is neither outdated nor misrepresentative of anything, it just doesn't convey what you seemingly interpret it should convey.
1022:
1012:
990:
347:
1358:
the discussion. Either address this at once or, if you cannot, just wait for some other people to intervene and stop keeping responding me to repeat the same over and over and over again without addressing what I'm telling you. Thanks.
1257:
and just stop replying unless new issues are raised in order to avoid going around in circles anymore. If you are unwilling to get the point, it is not my fault, but nobody should get dragged into an endless discussion like this.
824:
neither, nor have I edit wared or tried to implement any changes. So much of this thread is you throwing slander when mistakes may have been made and things are not done right or in your agreement. Please stop assuming bad faith.
345:
Iglesias hasn't led Podemos since May 2021 and retired from politics at that time. He also hasn't been included in any polls since that time either. His polls could be moved to a "former party leaders" section, as is done here -
668:
Its funny that you accuse me of a lack of knowledge when you are assuming I'm opening an rfc to look for people to agree with me or that I "cannot be bothered" to do this or that, which are both perfect examples of not
942:
Seriously, I don't want to continue this discussion here with you with the RfC open, specially when you are bringing this to personal territory. I please ask you to stop this right here, right now. Thank you.
1071:
fact that a person is no longer polled is already enough evidence for everyone to automatically assume that such person is no longer relevant at that stage, so there is no real identification problem there.
923:
Yet you kept insisting on Iglesias. You accepted the extension to other leaders along the way to avoid falling into outright incoherency, but removing Iglesias was the whole ordeal from the beginning.
1446:
1330:. So yes, these nuances are important on how to address this issue, as it modifies the approach (being a current party leader no longer a valid criterion for inclusion or lack of it).
908:
them. You accused me of multiple things like not being bothered to click links and using an rfc to get my own way, what you did is clearly in the grounds of assumption of bad faith.
1441:
933:
overlooking them. I did not tell you these things for you to make fun of them, but for you to actually get aware and act in consequence, something you insist on avoiding.
989:
Should former party leaders that are no longer being polled be moved out of the "Preferred Prime Minister" section to a "former party leaders" section, as is done with
578:
Ashwin Paranjape, Bob West, Jure Leskovec, Leila Zia: Improving Website Hyperlink Structure Using Server Logs. WSDM'16, February 22–25, 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA.
96:
78:
58:
1128:
what wants to specifically define such a thing. And yes, in spite of how disrespectful and hostile you continue to be towards me, I'm reading your comments.
1456:
847:. Since you chose to open a RfC, I see no point in continuing this discussion, and I think it's best for both of us to just focus on content. Thank you.
616:
to click them, finally using that as an excuse to reform the article in your own view so that the end result is that Iglesias is removed from the tables.
208:
985:
Should former party leaders that are no longer being polled be moved out of the "Preferred Prime Minister" section to a "former party leaders" section
218:
1471:
313:
1461:
323:
1451:
1244:
Well, it matters because you revolved the issue on these being current party leaders or not. It's not important for the article whether they
1099:
leaders" sub-section to move the Iglesias and Casado tables, since that won't break any continuity and would take very little further space.
929:
Yes, if you repeteadly and wittingly refuse to reply to sensible parts of my arguments and then go and reply as if you didn't read them, you
1476:
1426:
1408:
1370:
1320:
1269:
1211:
1170:
1137:
1110:
1051:
1036:
1002:
954:
917:
858:
833:
780:
754:
690:
635:
590:
542:
510:
481:
446:
403:
377:
359:
1418:
1400:
184:
1466:
1021:
I, however, can see some grounds for inserting a "former leaders" sub-section in the "Approval ratings" section, as what is done in
522:"Most readers don't clink Knowledge links" is an assumption that I don't know from where it's taken. Links are exactly for that. If
467:"It would be helpful if we agreed to established a uniform way of formatting this across leadership approval opinion polling pages"
289:
1341:
of the table, and separating info that could be served under a single table). Then you will be separating information data for
175:
136:
571:
33:
280:
241:
579:
1422:
1404:
937:"You accused me of multiple things like not being bothered to click links and using an rfc to get my own way"
678:
575:
clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention." This was reported in:
39:
1253:
leaders. You still haven't replied to almost any of the concerns I raised before, so I will resort to
1312:
1203:
1129:
1043:
994:
909:
825:
762:
727:
682:
597:
582:
515:
502:
461:
416:
395:
351:
1326:
on this), and the whole discussion above was started by you on the issue of Iglesias not being the
1316:
1207:
1133:
1047:
998:
913:
829:
686:
670:
586:
506:
399:
355:
1415:
288:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
183:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1355:
82:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to
840:"Iglesias should be removed from the "Preferred Prime Minister" and "Leader ratings" sections"
735:
622:"Iglesias should be removed from the "Preferred Prime Minister" and "Leader ratings" sections"
602:
844:
674:
390:
341:
Iglesias should be removed from the "Preferred Prime Minister" and "Leader ratings" sections
90:
1345:
leaders from their current stats just because they are shared with "former" leaders, thus
167:
161:
151:
130:
70:
52:
1435:
1360:
1306:
I should've said current leaders in the first place, I never meant that the person
1259:
1160:
1100:
1026:
944:
848:
770:
744:
625:
567:
532:
498:
471:
436:
386:
367:
272:
1023:
Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
1013:
Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
991:
Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
366:
account). Also, why is this noteworthy for Iglesias and not, let's say, Casado?
348:
Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
927:"just because I didn't directly respond to them doesn't mean I overlooked them"
470:
Open a RfC if you wish, but do so appropiately and not in a rant as this was.
262:
157:
94:
and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit
256:
235:
180:
84:
1337:. Firstly, you will be creating a second, separate table (this would a
1349:
it. I'm desperate at how to explain this to you so that you actually
430:
Also, you seem to overlook that some pollsters poll people that are
285:
743:"accept what I say and shut up"-style of compromise). Let's see.
769:
so that we don't have two simultaneous RfCs running? Thank you.
939:
Well, you acknowledged that yourself. That's not an accusation.
15:
1025:, so that's something that can see a compromise solution.
734:, I'm just asking you to don't be stubborn and actually
1254:
766:
759:
731:
673:. I know who leads these parties, I'm thinking of the
284:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
179:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
736:check the guidelines on how to properly open a RfC
106:Knowledge:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1447:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
1011:as per the discussion above. Firstly, because
109:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1442:List-Class Elections and Referendums articles
8:
427:what those article links are there for...).
230:
125:
47:
21:
19:
526:don't click Knowledge links, then that's
232:
127:
49:
1197:Whether or not these are specifically
936:
926:
839:
624:, so your aim was obvious all along).
621:
466:
79:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
7:
278:This article is within the scope of
173:This article is within the scope of
76:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
732:I don't mandate when to open a RfC
112:Elections and Referendums articles
14:
1457:High-importance politics articles
845:can constitute a personal attack
265:
255:
234:
160:
150:
129:
69:
51:
20:
318:This article has been rated as
213:This article has been rated as
1472:High-importance Spain articles
193:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics
1:
1462:WikiProject Politics articles
1371:20:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1321:19:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1270:18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1212:18:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1171:18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1138:17:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1111:17:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1052:16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1037:15:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1003:15:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
955:18:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
918:17:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
859:16:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
834:15:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
781:15:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
755:15:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
691:15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
636:15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
591:15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
543:15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
511:14:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
482:14:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
447:13:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
404:13:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
292:and see a list of open tasks.
196:Template:WikiProject Politics
187:and see a list of open tasks.
1452:List-Class politics articles
378:07:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
360:01:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
1477:All WikiProject Spain pages
1399:I like to learn more about
838:You titled this discussion
298:Knowledge:WikiProject Spain
1493:
324:project's importance scale
301:Template:WikiProject Spain
219:project's importance scale
1467:List-Class Spain articles
317:
250:
212:
145:
103:Elections and Referendums
64:
59:Elections and Referendums
46:
1427:20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
1409:20:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
572:2015 study of log data
28:This article is rated
765:. Now can you please
1328:current party leader
176:WikiProject Politics
671:assuming good faith
679:reader comes first
614:cannot be bothered
605:to help with that.
34:content assessment
1333:I said duplicate
338:
337:
334:
333:
330:
329:
281:WikiProject Spain
229:
228:
225:
224:
199:politics articles
124:
123:
120:
119:
1484:
1367:
1364:
1266:
1263:
1167:
1164:
1107:
1104:
1033:
1030:
951:
948:
855:
852:
777:
774:
751:
748:
632:
629:
615:
539:
536:
478:
475:
443:
440:
374:
371:
306:
305:
302:
299:
296:
275:
270:
269:
268:
259:
252:
251:
246:
238:
231:
201:
200:
197:
194:
191:
170:
165:
164:
154:
147:
146:
141:
133:
126:
114:
113:
110:
107:
104:
97:our project page
91:electoral reform
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1432:
1431:
1397:
1365:
1362:
1264:
1261:
1165:
1162:
1105:
1102:
1057:done so myself.
1031:
1028:
987:
949:
946:
853:
850:
775:
772:
749:
746:
630:
627:
613:
537:
534:
476:
473:
441:
438:
372:
369:
343:
320:High-importance
303:
300:
297:
294:
293:
271:
266:
264:
245:High‑importance
244:
215:High-importance
198:
195:
192:
189:
188:
168:Politics portal
166:
159:
140:High‑importance
139:
111:
108:
105:
102:
101:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1490:
1488:
1480:
1479:
1474:
1469:
1464:
1459:
1454:
1449:
1444:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1429:
1396:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1331:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1018:
1017:
1009:Partial oppose
986:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
940:
934:
924:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
617:
606:
603:MOS on linking
601:already has a
594:
593:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
520:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
428:
420:
409:
408:
407:
406:
381:
380:
342:
339:
336:
335:
332:
331:
328:
327:
316:
310:
309:
307:
304:Spain articles
290:the discussion
277:
276:
260:
248:
247:
239:
227:
226:
223:
222:
211:
205:
204:
202:
185:the discussion
172:
171:
155:
143:
142:
134:
122:
121:
118:
117:
115:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1489:
1478:
1475:
1473:
1470:
1468:
1465:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1455:
1453:
1450:
1448:
1445:
1443:
1440:
1439:
1437:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1419:41.116.73.234
1417:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:41.116.73.234
1394:
1372:
1369:
1368:
1357:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
984:
956:
953:
952:
941:
938:
935:
932:
928:
925:
922:
921:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
860:
857:
856:
846:
841:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
782:
779:
778:
768:
764:
761:
758:
757:
756:
753:
752:
741:
737:
733:
729:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
637:
634:
633:
623:
618:
612:
607:
604:
599:
596:
595:
592:
588:
584:
581:
577:
576:
573:
569:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
544:
541:
540:
529:
525:
521:
517:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
483:
480:
479:
468:
463:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
448:
445:
444:
433:
429:
426:
421:
418:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
405:
401:
397:
392:
388:
385:
384:
383:
382:
379:
376:
375:
364:
363:
362:
361:
357:
353:
349:
340:
325:
321:
315:
312:
311:
308:
291:
287:
283:
282:
274:
263:
261:
258:
254:
253:
249:
243:
240:
237:
233:
220:
216:
210:
207:
206:
203:
186:
182:
178:
177:
169:
163:
158:
156:
153:
149:
148:
144:
138:
135:
132:
128:
116:
99:
98:
93:
92:
87:
86:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
18:
17:
1398:
1361:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1327:
1307:
1260:
1250:
1245:
1198:
1161:
1101:
1027:
1008:
988:
945:
930:
849:
771:
745:
740:specifically
739:
626:
610:
533:
527:
523:
472:
437:
431:
424:
368:
344:
319:
279:
273:Spain portal
214:
174:
95:
89:
83:
77:
40:WikiProjects
1356:bludgeoning
1339:duplication
1335:or mutilate
767:revert this
1436:Categories
1347:mutilating
1255:link those
30:List-class
1313:Helper201
1204:Helper201
1130:Helper201
1044:Helper201
995:Helper201
910:Helper201
826:Helper201
763:Helper201
728:Helper201
683:Helper201
598:Helper201
583:Helper201
516:Helper201
503:Helper201
462:Helper201
417:Helper201
396:Helper201
352:Helper201
85:elections
677:and the
190:Politics
181:politics
137:Politics
1416:Questet
1343:current
1251:current
568:Impru20
499:Impru20
387:Impru20
322:on the
217:on the
1414:Infor@
675:reader
425:That's
391:reader
36:scale.
1395:Siece
1363:Impru
1262:Impru
1199:party
1163:Impru
1103:Impru
1029:Impru
947:Impru
851:Impru
773:Impru
747:Impru
628:Impru
535:Impru
474:Impru
439:Impru
370:Impru
295:Spain
286:Spain
242:Spain
1423:talk
1405:talk
1354:and
1351:read
1317:talk
1208:talk
1134:talk
1048:talk
999:talk
914:talk
830:talk
760:Cool
687:talk
587:talk
570:, a
528:your
507:talk
400:talk
356:talk
314:High
209:High
1308:had
1246:are
931:are
611:you
580:PDF
524:you
432:not
1438::
1425:)
1407:)
1366:20
1319:)
1265:20
1210:)
1166:20
1136:)
1106:20
1050:)
1032:20
1001:)
993:?
950:20
920:)
916:)
854:20
832:)
776:20
750:20
730:,
689:)
631:20
589:)
538:20
509:)
477:20
442:20
402:)
373:20
358:)
350:.
88:,
1421:(
1403:(
1315:(
1206:(
1132:(
1046:(
997:(
912:(
828:(
685:(
585:(
505:(
398:(
354:(
326:.
221:.
100:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
