Talk:Common Management Information Protocol

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common management information protocol -> Common Management Information Protocol

Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a proper noun referring to a single and specific international standard, not a general class of information protocols for common management. — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not a proper name, common management information protocol is just a concept. Stick with the MoS - no need for an exception here. Jojalozzo 02:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a specific international standard specified in ITU-T Recommendation X.711, ISO/IEC International Standard 9596-1. As the name of a specific and uniquely defined standard protocol (see X.200 for what a protocol is) it is a proper noun. It is a proper noun, just as Simple Network Management Protocol. — Dgtsyb (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all the capitalization requests by Dgtsyb until he produces evidence for the claims that these are propoer names; none of the ones that I have checked in book are. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Specific protocols are always unique, this article discusses the Common Management Information Protocol (among possible alternative protocols for management information). Thus, should be upper-cased, just like all the other specific protocols on Wikipedia. (No, this is not about which spelling is used the most but about correct grammar.) Nageh (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It does seem a proper noun, referring to the specific protocol defined in ITU-T X.711. In fact, the "common management information protocol" is SNMP, not CMIP since SNMP is more "common" in the lower case sense of the word. Not even sure anyone still uses CMIP. Although looking at a few quick sources show both upper and lower case used, there are plenty books that use upper: [1] [2] [3] for example. W Nowicki (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While "a common management information protocol" is a general concept, this article is about X.711, known as Common Management Information Protoocol. (I could also support a rename to "X.711") --Alvestrand (talk) 08:06, 26 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.

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common Management Information Protocol → X.711 – In doing the close and checking the category for this, most of these seem to be listed under the formal name assigned. Rather than keeping that discussion open, I elected to start this discussion to see if there is support for that alternative which was mentioned in the above discussion. No personal opinion on this. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No, we don't use the name of the standard organization's internal document name unless the specification is better known under that name. This protocol is also standardized by the ISO/IEC, btw. A redirect from X.711 to Common Management Information Protocol would be helpful, though. Nageh (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Unlike, X.25, CMIP is most often referred to as CMIP and not X.711. — Dgtsyb (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Enough brownian motion already. Spend time putting the references into citations for example instead of moves. W Nowicki (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.