Talk:Circuit identification code

Requested move

 * 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)

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)


 * 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.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Oppose—quite willing to consider proper name upcasing requests, though. Tony   (talk)  04:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CAPS, not proper noun. -- Club Oranje T 10:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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
The mainspace article, Circuit ID, is much longer and much more detailed. I'd recommend merging the two and developing redirects. -- TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 12:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)