Talk:Circuit identification code

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit identification code -> Circuit Identification Code

Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a proper noun referring to a single specific field in a single standard. It does not refer to a general identification code for circuits. — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is not a proper name. There is not one single code called "Circuit Identification Code", but many. See a Googlebooks search on "circuit identification codes".

Neither WP:CAPS nor WP:TITLE gives support to this RM.

Noetica^Tea? 00:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not a proper name, circuit identification code is just a concept. Stick with the MoS - no need for an exception here. Joja lozzo 02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—quite willing to consider proper name upcasing requests, though. $Tony (talk)$ 04:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CAPS, not proper noun. --ClubOranje^T 10:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a property of the Signaling System #7 specification, and not a unique entity. Don't get confused with upper-casing in technical documents and upper-casing of proper nouns according to English grammar rules. Nageh (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request Merge with Circuit ID article[edit]

The mainspace article, Circuit ID, is much longer and much more detailed. I'd recommend merging the two and developing redirects. --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 12:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]