The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support I don't think we'll need a vote, you can go right ahead and do it. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't think this move meets the definition of a move that can be done without consensus and, in any event, to do a move like this you would have to be an admin, which I am not ;) - Jord 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess that means I have to do it. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.mt 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Support, you should have waited, though. —Nightstallion(?) 10:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Even though this move was already done. The talk page is difficult to find now to discuss this. To assume that it will not need consensus is wrong. Vegaswikian 03:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved after a whole 7 minute discussion period? I hope other new admins aren't so trigger-happy.
I agree with Vegaswikian that this move should not have been done. And I agree with damn near everyone that this move shouldn't have been made out-of-process, making the discussion hard to find. 18.104.22.168 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I oppose the recent moves but there should probably been some discussion first. I'm going to keep the page names but redirect "Bill Graham to the Canadian politician until there has been a discussion first. --JGGardiner 07:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The page was not moved. It was turned into a redirect and then copy and pasted to new page name. I've reverted that. older ≠ wiser 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. I suppose in my head I was thinking of moving content around rather than the WP concept of page moves. --JGGardiner 05:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)