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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Circuit identification code be renamed and moved to Circuit Identification Code.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

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. Jojalozzo 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]