Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a25ed5b36a4f365e

Jump to content

Talk:Cosmopolitan Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 years ago by SkyWarrior in topic Requested move 5 February 2017

Requested move 5 February 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 16:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply


Cosmopolitan ChurchUCCP Cosmopolitan Church – this is the actual name. Lalaloopsywinx (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Question evidence please. An IP added "Not to be confused with the church Cosmopolitan Church that separated from the UCCP." without source. I have removed it pending results of this RM. What is the source for this? And if so what difference does it make, the building is still the building. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Cosmopolitan Church is a valid name for the establishment as stated in the heritage marker. Also as per WP:CONCISE, even though UCCP Cosmopolitan Church may be the legal name of the church (the entity, not the building), "Cosmopolitan Church" would suffice to refer both to the entity and the building. Create "UCCP Cosmopolitan Church" redirect to this page. Also I can't find any information, that the church has re-affliated itself with the UCCP.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.