They should me merged but the important differences not lost. "Common short codes" is a USA phrase while these would be described as "Cross network short codes" in UK. Also the additional data on non-USA situations is particularly valuable as this is an industry where Europe is far ahead of USA. Let's make this of universal value ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.29.90 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that in Canada, these are also called "Common Short Codes" so it is incorrect to say that is a USA term and the article should be limited to USA centric descripion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.68.134.175 (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short Codes and Common Short Codes while technically very similar should be differentiated. Short Codes typically work for a single mobile operator/carrier while Common Short Codes work across mobile operators, carriers and telcom providers. Furthermor CSCs are typically 5-6 digits in the U.S. while SCs are less than 5 digits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.53.233 (talk)

That is an important point. It is possible to merge the pages while calling attention to that distinction. -- Coneslayer 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writer holds the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.53.233 (talk)

Can you clarify what you mean by "this text"? Do you mean your comment above, or are you referring to the Common Short Codes article as a whole? -- Coneslayer 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 209.173.53.233 is neustargw.va.neustar.com and neustar is the owner of usshortcodes.com, where the original content of this article was copied from. The mysterious unsigned comment therefore seems to be an attempt to resolve the "copyvio" problem by making the usshortcodes.com text (or at least the portion that was copied here) GFDL. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]