Talk:Georgia-Cumberland Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Georgia-Cumberland Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -~!GTBacchus(talk)

Georgia-Cumberland Conference → Georgia-Cumberland Conference of Seventh-day Adventists — Official name, and also I think it is good to have the church name in there - "Seventh-day Adventist" or similar —Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. I support that, right now it's where Georgia-Cumberland Conference of Seventh-Day Adventist redirects to the current article. I agree that church name should be in there. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed new article title is a much better one, it's accurate, unambiguous and recognisable by far more people than the old one. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

[edit] Article Rating

Does anybody think that this article should be upgraded to start class, since i added some History and list of Presidents I though it really wasn't a stub anymore. Just a thought. Hatmatbbat10 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)