This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography 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.
Will do. I'm deleting the destination & moving this, as it has the most history. -- Tarquin -- Done. -- Tarquin 13:11 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)
The old joke is....why isn't the word for palindrome a palindrome? Somehow that relates to my qustion: why isn't Camel case written in a Camel case style? Should it be written as CamelCase in this article?Kingturtle 01:45 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Actually it IMHO very much should be written and titled "CamelCase", because that is also the common usage. Feel free to move/edit/fix redirects as appropriate. --Eloquence 04:27 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
Never seen this form of the term before today, but noticed it was listed as an alternative version in the article. It was noted as lacking a citation, so I figured I'd offer this info. This is apparently the term for CamelCase in JetBrains products. Here you go:
This article explained here is not Camelcasing it is Pascal Casing. In camelCasing The first letter of an identifier is lowercase and the first letter of each subsequent concatenated word is capitalized. For example: camelCase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I was coming here to say the same thing. This article describes PascalCase, not camelCase. Brianary (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The lead explains Microsoft's definition that you are using. Bhny (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both of the above comments re. camelCase but would also add that the Camel illustration is wrong and misleading too. The head should show the first word which should start with a lower case letter and the following word(s) should start with an upper case letter in the hump(s).
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.
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Both forms appear to be in use.Cúchullaint/c 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
CamelCase → Camel case – Google ngram viewer () shows no hits for this spelling. It's a common noun and should not be capitalized or mashed up. Jojalozzo 22:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Support per nom. It's cute with the recursive orthography but it's also confusing since we're capitalizing a common noun. I've never seen it written in camel case but I may not read the same publications that others here do. Jojalozzo 22:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell we're writing it in camel case because some sources do so and it's cute and self-referential. I think it's more encyclopedic to use a standard orthography. We don't write "sentence case" with a capital S, though it would be similarly cute (though much less so). Jojalozzo 01:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – the rationale is flaky. I don't think the google n-gram viewer has camelcase among its possibilities. And a google book search shows lots of "camelCase" and "CamelCase" in books, and few or no "camelcase". It's just too cute to resist, I guess. "Camel case" is also common, but I can't support on the rationale given. And writing in camelCase makes no implication about whether the secondary lexical elements would ordinarily be capitalized or not. Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I take your point about ngram viewer but we're still not dealing with a proper noun. Jojalozzo 01:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree we're not dealing with a proper noun. Like I said, camelCase doesn't imply such a thing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The term "camelCase" doesn't appear in the article, only the fully capitalized form appears a couple of times. Generally the article uses "camel case", two words, lower case. I'm interested in what you see as the drawbacks of "Camel case" for the title. Jojalozzo 05:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see much drawback. Both forms are very common in sources. And since it's not a trademark or such, I guess you're right it shouldn't sport the styling. I'll withdraw my objection since you withdrew the n-gram rationale. But I'm not really inclined to support it still. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you mean Dick, right? Jojalozzo 01:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, just cut and pasted what looked like the signature at the end of the comment! (Also I fixed the discussion formatting for that).--Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎 01:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose CamelCase illustrates camelCase, so is a more useful title form -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not particularly swayed by this argument. I don't see a need to demonstrate the concept in the title. Just because it's possible doesn't mean we should do it. I find it more confusing than expository. It appears that the article is about a specific product, perhaps a suitcase with a drinking water supply. :-) Jojalozzo 05:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
A bag with water supply is the CamelBak. Though "camel case" looks like it is saddlebags for a camel, if I follow similar reasoning to yours. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced either. Try that argument over at Italic type. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree with reasoning given by the objectors the last time this was brought up.--MrBoire (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose; classic case of WP:IAR. This change doesn't improve the encyclopedia; it makes it more staid and less fun. Less fun means fewer contributions. PowersT 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Support, actually, yeah. At first, you might think this is correct, but it's not. Just because this article is about camel case, doesn't mean we should use it for the title. We also don't call the German language article "Deutsche Sprache", but use the correct English name for it, and in this case this means we have to use proper capitalisation. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Support per nom and better accordance with Letter case. Article titles aren't the place to be clever. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You need a new section heading to distinguish from the previous requested move. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I kept being fooled into thinking my edits were closing the discussion. Jojalozzo 01:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
FWIW I agree with 22.214.171.124. I've worked for the last quarter century as a programmer in the UK and the Netherlands, mostly using Microsoft technologies. The usage I'm familiar with treats camelCase and PascalCase as being distinct. So perhaps in a broader context, camelCase encompasses both, but when two programmers are communicating with each other, the ambiguity would just be unhelpful. "What's the coding convention for fields on this project?" - "Oh, we use camel case" - "What, you mean camel case camel case, or pascal case camel case?". I understand that my personal experience probably doesn't meet the guidelines, but I'm convinced that the usage I describe is widespread, and I hope this is enough to establish at least some doubt about the sweeping definition given in the article as it stands. Maybe that Microsoft Capitalization Styles document is authoritative? Dominic Cronin (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
These can be reported as the Microsoft .Net convention definitions, citing that doc. But I wouldn't go further without a better source. Dicklyon (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's a C# book that notes that "Microsoft and other industry leaders have modified the standard use of camel case" in the way you describe, and "What most people call camel case, Microsoft calls Pascal case." Dicklyon (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
We use WP:COMMONNAME, or "what most people call camel case" as your reference agrees. Bhny (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the difference between Pascal Case and camel case is totally artificial, and based on arbitrary/biassed sources. I have been using the so called Pascal form of camel case over two decades of my professional life (in NL with stints in BE and GER), learned it from books, and it was always referred to as just "camel case". Wikipedia is the first time I actually saw this difference made. Revisionism IMHO.
But I'm not from a MS language (but Delphi/C++Builder) camp. It can be that only MS makes that distinction, and then that should be noted, not presented as an universal rule. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree re. camelCase (note capitalization) but would also add that the Camel illustration is wrong and misleading too. The head should show the first word, which should start with a lower case letter, and the following word(s) should start with an upper case letter in the hump(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it worth commenting that in sans-serif fonts (including this page in the display screen, but not in the edit screen) a capital I (=i) is almost identical to a lower case l (=L), which is not a problem if you can predict capitalization, but becomes one if capitals can appear medially, for example in passwords? CamelCase is an important reason for choosing fonts that make this distinction clear. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)