Talk:Same-sex marriage in Spain/Archive 1

message: Why in the section 'marriage numbers' the only sources cited are La Razon (a blatantly right-wing Spanish newspaper) and an article whose headline is, 'Unmasking the gay lie?'  I mean, can we get any more POV here? If we can't find other sources to give a balance to the section (and a balance is needed, because there are always two ways to make the numbers speak for themselves), I suggest putting a tag there warning of possible POV. Cheers  Raystorm 11:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, that's because the other side intentionally hid the data. That's not my fault. If you search for same-sex marriage numbers on the web, you will find a lot of pro-same-sex marriages sites questioning why was so much uproar about same-sex marriage then, if it was such a disaster (sic). The data, however, is accurate both with the number of same-sex marriages given by Zerolo at that date, and with the usual number of marriages on Spain every year. The data also comes from real civil registries, you just have to call them if you want to be sure. I understand your doubts about the POV of these sources, that's why I have searched the web before posting them, and no reliable sources were found disputing the numbers. Please don't just dismiss data based on their sources, that's Ad Hominem. Cheers. DrJones 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read your changes on the marriage numbers section and I don't know if I have fully understood what you wanted to say. Do you mean that LaRazon might have intentionally left out registries against their point? That's a valid point, but wouldn't it count as Original Research? "Half the country" is an assumption also likely to be Original Research. It could be perfectly more than that (assuming that the registries aren't uniformly distributed), or fewer than that (people aren't uniformly distributed around Spain, either). The article already stated that the info only takes into account half of the registries, so I find the remark somewhat superfluous. DrJones 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I mean that LaRazon intentionally counted missing registries as favoring their point.  Most of the registries did not distinguish between het and gay marriage when giving their total marriage numbers.  LaRazon just made estimates from those registries based on those registries that had made the distinction.  And about not finding reliable sources disputing the the numbers, it depends on what you call reliable.  You can check Spanish gay and lesbian associations (such as felgt, cogam) for their data.  Would that be biased?  More than LaRazon and the other article cited? I don't know.  But would it give a balance to what is presented? Certainly.  Raystorm 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Took off from the article the statement from 'Unmasking the gay lie' (http://www.esposibleelcambio.com/cms/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2081&forum=24&post_id=24240), but not because of what you may think. See  Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples#Use of electronic or online sources.  Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. Cheers Raystorm 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Could anyone edit the last paragraph in section Reactions ?
The 7th November 2006, the government amended the law on assisted reproduction, allowing the non-biological mother to recognize children born within a lesbian marriage. 
http://es.news.yahoo.com/07112006/185/lesbianas-podran-madres-hijos-in-vitro-parejas.html
:: Done. Next time, be bold! :) Raystorm 12:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children born within a lesbian marriage 

message: Let's see how it goes... Raystorm 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated article for Good Article status 

message: We need more pictures for this article aside from the maps.  I found a really good pic in the web showing people celebrating at the congress that the bill had passed. I have asked permission to use it (per Wikipedia's policy), and am waiting for a response. Meanwhile I've made a request at WP:RP for pictures of the two demonstrations, for and against the law. If anyone could contribute anything, it would be great! Cheers Raystorm 01:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got permission to use the image, so I uploaded it to Wikipedia and added it to the article. I do hope I've done everything by the book about copyright issues according to Wikipedia (I've got half a mind to call an administrator to check everything is okay with the image and that I'm not missing some crucial step of the upload images' process). Oh well, guess I'll find out if they list it for deletion, but I hope it doesn't come to that. I did get permission, after all (in Spanish though, which is what is troubling me somewhat, though it shouldn't be a problem, right?)... Added a link to the web that gave me permission, btw, as per their request. Cheers Raystorm 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He can't be a supporter because you think he's thirteen? He is supporting the cause, ergo he is a supporter. You are making an assumption based on age that I really don't think is grounds for the deletion or removal of the image. You do not need to be of legal age to support a cause. Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 22:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: These are decisions for freedom, to allow free people to choose freely. They are not meant to attack any moral position, since they belong to the civil realm, determined by the legitimate will of the majority of the citizens. ... Spain is a democracy whose sovereignty resides in the Parliament, which passes laws on social life. I deeply respect all citizens' religious convictions, and it's true that there are many Catholics in Spain. However, while respecting the best spirit of the Church's doctrine, we must make the difference between civil space and the intimate space of personal conviction. The worst occurs when the two are confused. 
I had to change it for another one because I couldn't find a source for it. It's a pity, because it's quite beautiful. If anyone finds a reference for it, we could put it back. Cheers Raystorm 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zapatero's quote 

message: I completely forgot to say it here, but I nominated this article for FA status (as eveyone can see with the FAC template above). Cheers Raystorm 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yessss, we're a FA! X-D Raystorm 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: Hey - if the law passed in 2005, and there weren't any amendments when it passed, can't that info be taken out? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm checking the amendments info and have provisionally taken it out from the legislation infobox. The thing is, I'm getting conflicting info about there actually existing some amendments to this law. I'm going to research this now. Cheers Raystorm 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendments? 

message: Anyone up for this yet? ZueJay (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule the main page FA is never protected. It is often the first page of the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit" that new users come across. For them not to actually be able to edit it is generally seen as counterpoductive. Many people will watchlist the main page FA so vandalism should be reverted fairly efficiently. WjBscribe 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is considered fairly often though; anything on the front page is pretty much literally a painted target to a vandal. More often than not, front page articles are hit the hardest. HalfShadow 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey-doke. Gonna be a long haul. Thanks for the info. ZueJay (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure we can't semi-protect? The amount of vandalism this article is receiving is pretty amazing. If only those vandals tried to read the article too... :-) Raystorm 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually really mild compared to the amount of vandalism some FAs receive! There'll be loads of other people reading the article as well and everyone seems on top of reverting the vandalism. WjBscribe 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotect?

message: The first sentence does not tell me anything, I am not clear about what this is, Is it a Law?, a report?, a proposal?, a movement?, a convention, ???
I am at a loss from the first sentence. The first sentence should be changed to something like:
The Civil Marriage Act is a piece of Spanish legislation passed in 2005 that........
is a Spanish law governing.....
The Civil Marriage Act (XXXX) is an Act of the Parliament of Spain, passed in 2005 as bill Z-21.......
The Civil Marriage Act (full title: "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes") was legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Spain. It was introduced as Bill XXX in the X session of the XXth Spanish Parliament on February 1, 2004. It passed the House of Commons on April 28, 2005, and the Senate on July 19, 2005. The Act became law when it received aproval by the prime minister on August 15, 2005
The Civil Marriage Act is a piece of Spanish legislation passed in 2005 that........
is a Spanish law governing.....
The Civil Marriage Act (XXXX) is an Act of the Parliament of Spain, passed in 2005 as bill Z-21.......
The Civil Marriage Act (full title: "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes") was legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Spain. It was introduced as Bill XXX in the X session of the XXth Spanish Parliament on February 1, 2004. It passed the House of Commons on April 28, 2005, and the Senate on July 19, 2005. The Act became law when it received aproval by the prime minister on August 15, 2005
"Same-sex marriage in Spain is a law that became act in 2005"
or
"Same-sex marriage became law in Spain in 2005"
or something similar to the 8 examples given above!
What do you think?
Trade2tradewell 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the implication is pretty clear. 'Same-sex marriage in Spain was legalised in 2005'. What else could it be? :-) Just same-sex marriage. If it was legalised, it's a law. I would keep it as it is, nice and simple. Cheers Raystorm 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence  

message: This is the diff I am using to find "old" lingering vandalism. It's a diff between whatever is the current version and the last version of 13 March, right before it went up on the main page. I had to adjust some linebreaks to make all the paragraphs line up. As it is currently, I think I've gotten the lingering vandalism out. However, there seem to be a lot of wikilinks in the old version that have been removed or made less specific. That might be because the previous wikilinks were misleading, but I don't know if all of these were good changes. — coelacan — 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like MisfitToys decided many of those lost links were indeed useful. Thanks for taking the time to figure out what belonged! — coelacan — 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  note on lingering vandalism 

message: Out of interest what does estado laico mean (in this :Image:Gay March celebrating 2005 Pride Day and Same-Sex Marriage Law in Spain.jpg image). From Google translation it means lay state, from a Google search I found laico appears to be Laity so I can't guess what it means... Nil Einne 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laicism :-) Raystorm 17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah okay, I get it now. Thanks :-) Nil Einne 15:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure. :-) Pretty sharp eye you've got there! Raystorm 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estado Laico 

message: I'm trying to translate this article into Turkish, but I don't even know what on earth "consular demarcation" even means. When I searched for "consular demarcation" on Google, only 8 results came up (2 of which from Wikipedia's same-sex marriage in Spain and the featured article discussion page, about 5 others which are basically copies of original Wikipedia text). Could somebody please clarify "consular demarcation" for me? Thank you. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say it's the place (in another country) where there is a consulate from your own country. There surely is a better wording for it than consular demarcation (it does seem like a direct translation from the Spanish demarcación consular :P), but I can´t think of one. Suggestion are welcome. Good luck with your translation! Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Consular demarcation" 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: According to the Spanish National Statistics Institute (INE), 8,832 same-sex marriages have taken place in Spain from 2005 to 2007: 1,269 in 2005, 4,313 in 2006 and 3,250 in 2007. I think this information should be added to the article. You can check at: 
http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&file=pcaxis&path=%2Ft20%2Fe301%2Fmatri%2Fa2005
http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t20/e301/matri/a2006/&file=pcaxis
http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=%2Ft20%2Fe301%2Fprovi07&file=pcaxis&L=&divi=&his=
Antares Dbd (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Think we should remove the figures from June 2007? Btw, at some point we're going to have to create a table or something so it looks 'cleaner'... Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the figures from June 2007 contradict the information from the INE. As it is stated in the article, they didn't reflect the actual amount of marriages, so I would only keep INE data, which seems more accurate... Yeah, maybe it would be a good idea to create a table that includes the number of marriages per year, classifying them in marriages between men and between women. Antares Dbd (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage statistics 

message: I can't find proof that he opposed the bill itself - only gay marriage in general here. Clearly he was opposed to the change, but the article suggests he opposed the bill. I think a rephrase is in order. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I do think too that if he opposed gay marriage it clearly implies he opposed the bill. :P Nonetheless, I've found this, which provides a kind of timeline of 'Vatican actions'. Pope John Paul II was the head of the Vatican, so when the Vatican exhorted Catholic politicians to oppose the bill, I believe it is not wrong to say that the Pope was behind this. However, if you are suggesting we rephrase in order to make even more clear his opposition to gay marriage in general, I am not against the idea. But the Vatican under his direction certainly was concerned about the Spanish bill specifically, and took pains to address the issue. That should remain clear as well. Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the timeline of Vatican opposition fits with JPII's reign then I suppose it's fine. I think that briefly saying that he opposed gay marriage in general could be helpful either way. I was mainly concerned with the fact that he was dead by the time the bill reached congress! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, any suggestions about how we could introduce that in the text, so it doesn't lose the flow? Maybe with a note? Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 00:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope John Paul's Opposition 

message: On her deathbed in 2008, Doña Luisa Isabel Alvarez de Toledo y Maura, 21st Duquesa de Medina-Sidonia, married her longtime lesbian companian Liliana Maria Dahlmann, now president of the Casa Medina Sidonia Foundation (much to the chagrin of the 22nd Duque de Medina Sidonia!). Does anyone know the legal status of Ms Liliana Dahlmann? As she was married to the 21st Duchess, does that... by extension... make Liliana Dahlmann now a dowager duchess by marriage? Conversly, if a Prince of Spain were to marry a man, would his husband .... by extension... become a prince-consort?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, yes. I don't know about the Prince part, but I imagine it would be the same. Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 18:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW! Thank's for that find!!!! The the life of the Red Duchess would make an excellent movie!!!!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you're welcome. And I agree about the movie part. ;) That said, I don't think the info about the Red Duchess looks good in the marriage statistics section. Hmmm, maybe the Reactions section? Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 11:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Prehaps, I am uncertin as to its exact placement too to be honest. It is statistically noteworthy, one could argue, in that of the Duchess Luisa Isabel's high prestigious rank... what are the numbers of other nobles who have entered into a same sex union? I don't think those numbers are available. But if you feel it should be in another section, I am open to that. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there again. Sorry, I've taken out the paragraph about the Red Duchess. I honestly don't know where to put it. I've been reading again the Reactions section, and that only deals with the reactions to the passing of the law. Same thing for Marriage statistics. I don't know, maybe we should create a new section and put the info there? Notable weddings? Same-sex marriage in the aristocracy? What do you think? Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'm thinking judge Grande-Marlaska (the wedding in itself wasn't high-profile, but his announcement that he had married another man was), television presenter Jesús Vázquez... Surely we can find more. It'd be nice if we could find some women, too. And a religious leader would simply be splendid (but I think we'd have heard about it). ;) Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 15:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh heh, first gay wedding in the military ^^ And we can't forget Zerolo's wedding or the first wedding in the party that opposed the bill, PP. ^^ Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

text: That's 5 high profile weddings, inlcuding that of the Red Duchess! Great! And something of a cross section of Spanish society too, from a noble, to a celebrity or TV personality, to a politician, to two "knights" (of a sort)!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and get to it tonight when I get home, if you don't get to it before I do.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked for help gathering sources at the Spanish LGBT Wikiproject. Hopefully we can find something more of interest. :) Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 12:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it looks wonderful. Thank you! And who knows, maybe some day there'll be a movie about her. :P Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 13:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The 21st [[Dukes of Medina Sidonia|Duquesa de Medina-Sidonia]] and Ms Liliana Dahlmann

message: Added gallery for additional images of the Same-sex marriage in Spain event♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Added gallery

message: Does Spanish law recognize same sex marriages in other countries? What of same sex unions? It may seem self evident that they would, but it is not clearly stated that a Canadian gay marriage would be recognized in Spain. Is there a full faith clause in Spainish law? Conversly, what would the expierence a Spanish gay couple who lived in say Italy or England be under the law?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen nothing to suggest that married gay couples are treated differently under Spanish law than married non-gay couples. Marriages between same-sex couples don't exist as a distinct category in places where gay marriage is legal; couples are simply allowed to marry regardless of gender, so I can't imagine why Spain would recognise a different-sex couple's Canadian marriage but not a same-sex couple's. As for other types of unions, well Spain does recognise UK civil partnerships (although a special application is required ) as for other country's civil unions I don't know. The legal status of Spanish same-sex marriages in countries where gay marriage is illegal is dependent on that nation's own laws, it may treated as a civil union (like in England) or it may have no legal recognition (I imagine this would this would be the case in most countries) or in a few cases it may be recognised even if gay couples aren't allowed marry within that jurisdiction (like in Israel). MaesterTonberry (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish gay couples in outher jurisdictions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Same-sex marriage in Spain. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20040415-0750-spain-marriage.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118154119/http://www.lexureditorial.com/boe/0506/09402.htm to http://www.lexureditorial.com/boe/0506/09402.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gay.com/news/election/article.html?2005%2F06%2F23%2F2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.felgt.org/Webportal/DesktopDefault.aspx?%3FAlias=Rainbow&TabID=50&Lang=es&ItemID=2623&mid=48&smid=68
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005%2F04%2F21%2F5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314051755/http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=12795 to http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=12795
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201082402/http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2255-1-study_file.pdf to http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2255-1-study_file.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160122075042/http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/ebs_437_en.pdf to http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/ebs_437_en.pdf
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) 17:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I counted the number of same-sex marriages in the table and learned that the number of same-sex marriages in the table does not match the number that is given below. According to the data in the table from 2005 to the end of 2014, 33,703 same-sex marriages were registered in Spain. According to information outside the table,http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/07/02/inenglish/1435826279_516568.html?rel=mas 31640 same-sex marriages were registered in Spain during the same period.
In addition, I found that data on the total number of marriages starting in 2013 coincides with the number of heterosexual marriages. Moreover, Hispanic Wikipedia led other figures for 2013.
I will be grateful if someone will solve this problem. Oliviw (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in statistics(???) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Same-sex marriage in Spain. 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/20070914002837/http://www.agenciapulsar.org/nota.php?id=3469 to http://www.agenciapulsar.org/nota.php?id=3469
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111170414/http://www.webdehogar.com/noticias/0506/20154220.htm to http://www.webdehogar.com/noticias/0506/20154220.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914125130/http://www.ciimu.org/webs/wellchi/working_papers/wp6_roca.pdf to http://www.ciimu.org/webs/wellchi/working_papers/wp6_roca.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Queens_outburst_sparks_debate_about_monarchy_in_Spain_28050.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227092736/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/7887 to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/7887
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227092418/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/11617 to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/11617
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424141558/http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html to http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html
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) 03:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Same-sex marriage in Spain. 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/20121119093126/http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/resolucionesrecientes/Documents/2005-06864STC.pdf to http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/resolucionesrecientes/Documents/2005-06864STC.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in Spain. 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://www.webcitation.org/64wmemjJk?url=http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15136871 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Spains-Queen-Sofia-Pilar-Urbanos-New-Book-Causes-Controversy-Due-To-Comments-About-Gay-Marriage/Article/200810415136871?lpos=World_News_Second_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15136871_Spains_Queen_Sofia%3A_Pilar_Urbanos_New_Book_Causes_Controversy_Due_To_Comments_About_Gay_Marriage
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120525225607/http://www.ipsnoticias.net/print.asp?idnews=34585 to http://www.ipsnoticias.net/print.asp?idnews=34585
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) 00:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Total (Parejas) 11.307,2 Pareja del mismo sexo 115,3.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.48.31.34 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: hola 31.4.198.198 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Número de parejas según tipo de unión y sexo de la pareja 

message: Hola 31.4.198.198 (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karam