Talk:CamelCase/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

CinemaScope is not CamelCase

As seen at [1], the CinemaScope mark consists entirely of uppercase letters (look at the 'A'), with the 'C' and 'S' simply larger than the other (capital) letters. IMO all citations of CinemaScope should be removed from this page, except possibly to an image of the mark and an explanation of why it is not an example of CamelCase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlf2 (talkcontribs) 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The text on that page spells the name as "CinemaScope" over and over. That's not quite proof, but, before deleting CinemaScope from the article, you should check how the company spelled its product's name in printed text. Methinks it was indeed 'CinemaScope'...
Moreover, I would say that the poster is in CamelCase, but using a so-called 'caps and small caps font', where lowercase letters are just smaller copies of the uppercase ones. Jorge Stolfi 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jorge, I agree that CamelCase is often a necessary approximation to the actual caps+small caps combination, but it seems questionable to hold up such an approximation as an example of CamelCase. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but if the references to CinemaScope remain I think it's worthwhile to draw a distinction between the actual mark, which is not CamelCase, and the typical ASCII representation of the mark, which is. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlf2 (talkcontribs) 02:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stupid synonyms.

"DrinkingCamel", "WalkingCamel"? Some of these are blatantly made up and used by nobody, e.g. "ProudCamel" only turns up this article on Google (and Google is relevant here because quirky programmer names for things are found more on the Web than in print). I think people are either trusting the "Jargon File" too much or trying to introduce their own original terms into common usage; neither is a good thing in an encyclopaedia. I was going to trim the list of synonyms to just a few reasonable, common ones but it's so long I can't even face it. 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't camelcase.

Camelcase is NOT as defined on the page. Camelcase is where you capitalize each consonant but not the vowels.... LiKe THiS, oK?

Umm, I think you're thinking of Studly capitalization. Noel (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Phew, I justRead an articleWritten entirely inCamelCase on unCycloPedia. iWonder where CamelCase is used other than what was mentioned in this article. (This is not intended as a joke or an act of vandalism) Cheers, theDoctahedron, 03:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It's me again. In Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, the names of certain items such as DeepSeaTooth and DeepSeaScale are in CamelCase... but names of Pokémon aren't (not even Kangaskhan; the spelling KangasKhan—the spelling I personally like—is incorrect). This probably started when they lifted the requirement that object names be in UPPERCASE. Cheers, theDoctahedron, 03:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

History of name

Also, what is the origin of the term Camel case? I am guessing that it is because the capital letters are like humps on a camel, but it should be stated in the article. Also, was there a particular programming language that named it that? Or did this word evolve from the street like spam? Kingturtle 01:49 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

No idea who named it first, but yes, it's because of the capital letters resembling camel humps. Not sure if it even originated with programming, because the convention there is usually likeThis, i.e. lower case first. --Eloquence 04:49 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
I've heard that it comes from the Perl programming language. It's main reference manual uses this format for naming functions, and renders a camel in its cover (Perl's symbol is a camel, and the book itself is known as "The Camel Book" in the perl community). Setsuden 05:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think McDonald's is a true exemplar of CamelCase, since this is a conventional form of capitalization for Scottish and Irish names. - Matt McLauchlin

Well, IMHO "CamelCase" is only a generic name for the use of capitalization (rather than hyphens or spaces) to separate parts of a compound word. While the name is quite modern, the practice is much older and quite varied (cf. CinemaScope). So if the name "CamelCase" can be retoractively applied to those older uses, why not include the Scottish names as well? Jorge Stolfi 02:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. The original term was medial capitals with CamelCase coming more recently from technical sources. The format of such names is still the conjunction of two original words - with mac, fitz, o, de typically mean son or grandson - i.e. son of Donald, Roy, Connor, or Gaulle (McDonald, FitzRoy, OConnor, deGaulle). Greyskinnedboy  Talk  05:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Early Usenet Sightings

Here are the oldest Usenet postings of various terms, using Google Groups:

  • BiCapitalized: alt.folklore.computers - 30 Jan 1991 by Eric S. Raymond: [2]
  • BiCapitalization: alt.folklore.computers - 30 Jan 1991 by Eric S. Raymond: [3]
  • BiCapitalisation: comp.sources.misc - 18 Mar 1992 by Alec David Muffett: [4]
  • BiCapitalised: alt.folklore.computers - 12 Nov 1993 by pete: [5]
  • BiCapitalize: - 24 May 1995 by Karl A Krueger: [6]
  • Camel Case: comp.os.linux.advocacy - 13 Sep 1995 by Newton Love: [7]
  • camel-case: comp.lang.perl.misc - 23 Jan 1996 by Jeff Gruszynski: [8]
  • CamelCase: comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc - 18 Jun 1996 by Thomas Paul: [9]
  • BiCapitalise: alt.usage.english - 9 Jan 1997 by Michael B. Quinion: [10]
  • camel casing: netscape.public.mozilla.layout - 10 Nov 1998 by Angus Davis: [11]
  • CamelCasing: alt.html - 5 May 1999 by Jay Rossiter / Signe: [12]
  • camelcasing: comp.lang.javascript - 19 May 1999 by Jay Rossiter / Signe: [13]
  • camelCased: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms - 17 Jan 2001 by Shawn Burke: [14]
  • camel-cased: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp - 12 Mar 2001 by Dan Haygood: [15]
  • bicapitalizing does not occur yet on Usenet but is on the WWW twice: [16] and [17]

Hippietrail 14:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great! I have provisionally added some of this info to the article ("History of the name"). It would be nice to have the sources of those refs tracked down. Jorge Stolfi 02:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History of the style

It says that CamelCase originated as a C programming convention. Is this documented?

C traditionally used underscores to separate compound names. To my knowledge, while it may have been used earlier in localized contexts, CamelCase became a major epidemic only after 1979, mainly by influence of the Xerox PARC "Alto" (forerunner of the Macintosh) and its systems programming language, Mesa. The designers at PARC felt that a left-arrow key was essential, in order to avoid the =/== confusion bugs of C without the prolixity of Pascal's :=, and appropriated the underscore key for that purpose. Without an underscore key, Mesa programmers wre then forced to use CamelCase. This style spread to several universities which got Alto donations from PARC, and found its way into other PARC "products", such as the PostScript graphics language, and the short-lived Star commercial workstations [and possibly into Smalltalk - not sure]. Niklaus Wirth reportedly acquired a taste for the style during a visit to PARC, and adopted it -- perhaps for aesthetic(?) reasons only -- in the Lilith workstation project and the Modula and Oberon languages (his earlier language, Pascal, had used underscores). [I heard this story from John Wick and other PARC people in the 80's, when I was a summer intern there]. Many CamelCase-infected people from PARC later moved to other influential places such as Adobe and DEC SRC, which helped spread the virus further. The Alto inspired Vaugnh Pratt and others at Stanford to found the Sun corporation, and some CamelCasing in Sun products (such as OpenWindows) may perhaps be traced to that.

As for the name "CamelCase", the first time I saw it was week, here in Wikipedia.

Can anyone confirm this story, or provide earlier candidates? Jorge Stolfi

The underscore wasn't "appropriated" by lovers of left arrows. For some reason or another, ASCII changed a few characters in (I think) the mid-70s. Left arrows on TTYs turned into underscores; up-arrows turned into carets. Just to add to the confusion.... jpgordon 04:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can attest personally that the Alto had a left arrow key and lacked the undesrcore key; so that part of the story is true. The question is whether that was the start of CamelCase, or whether the style started elsewhere. Perhaps the keybaord was changed to suit the language, rather than the other way around? Jorge Stolfi 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
According to a paper by Eric Fischer (, the June 1963 version of ASCII included the up- and left-arrows. `USA Standard Code For Information Interchange', dated July 1967, has the underscore. (The details are mind-numbing; refer to the paper for the various antics and contortions that moved code points around between these two standards.) Vmanis (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
My guess as to why C used underscores is that Thompson and Richie picked it up from their time working on Multics (which was before they did C and Unix); Multics used _ very extensively to separate multi-word variable/routine names.
Actually, I'm kind of surprised that, on the PDP-11 at least, CamelCase wasn't more popular in Unix, because external names (both data and procedure) were limited to 7 characters in C (8, actually, but C always added a hidden leading _ to prevent collisions with assembler externals), so you didn't have a lot of characters to waste!
Indeed the early Unix people were influenced by Multics, and specifically by PL/I, which Multics was implemented in. PL/I introduced the underscore as the `break character', and encouraged its use for separating words in an identifier. So a name like MAX_CONCURRENT_UPDATES is very PL/Iish. As for the issue of external name length on the PDP-11, the cart is before the horse. The early Unixers were influenced by a lack of desire to type long things, hence command names such as ls and the most important global variable in Unix, a pointer to the current process area, known as cp. They wouldn't have used long names if they'd had them, so they didn't have them. Vmanis (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
One also needs to remember that before Multics (and the more advanced computers of the next generation like Unix), most computers didn't support lower case, so mixed-case wasn't an option anyway. Noel (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

PL/I in the early 1960's included the underscore in its identifier character set, and that was in EBCDIC. (PL/I also has three more letters: @, #, and $.) So, I disagree with the comment that ASCII was related to adding the underscore to names. While lower case existed in EBCDIC pretty early, keypunches didn't have the option to punch them (I believe until the 129). Most IBM compilers don't (didn't) accept lower case. Gah4 (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Origin - WordPerfect

I vaguely recall reading about how certain programs, like WordPerfect came to be without the space. Something about saving the extra character was cited... Krupo 06:58, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

CamelCase and Wiki

I did a major cleanup of this page. Following the "non-self-refrential" principle, I moved all the Wiki/Wikipedia material to separate pages (CamelCase and Wiki and Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia). Besides, I gather that the use of CamelCase in Wiki/Wikipedia was a very short-lived experiment which did not work well, so I wonder whether that material will be of much interest to readers, except to the persons involved).Jorge Stolfi 07:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Upper and lower CamelCase

camelCase -vs- Bicapitalization

Maybe this article is actually describing only Bicapitalization? See this website for a description of the difference with camelCase. - Bevo 22:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, the distinction is not so clear. When Xerox PARC started programming in underscore-free Mesa, they soon settled on a definite coding style that used both "dromedaryCase" and "CamelCase" - the former for variables and record fields, the latter for modules, types, and procedures. Jorge Stolfi 06:06, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Camel case -vs- mixed case

Wikipedia says mixed case is the same as camel case - is this really so? AFAIK this would be an example of mixed case: 'inputScreen();' while this would be camel case: 'InputScreen();'

A reference to this would be which says:

   - CapitalizedWords (or CapWords, or CamelCase -- so named because
     of the bumpy look of its letters[4]).  This is also sometimes known as
   - mixedCase (differs from CapitalizedWords by initial lowercase

This is however in total contrast with ESR's Jargon Dictionary, which states that 'inputScreen();' is camel case, and 'InputScreen();' bicapitalization, like Jorge said.

Wikipedia contradicts both documents, so it really should be changed... but into what?

Ludootje 16:08, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Acronyms and CamelCase

I was wondering how all-capital-acronyms or words with funny capitalization (e.g. NASA, DoD, LoTR) are written in CamelCase. For instance, would you write MakeNasaInput or MakeNASAInput or MakeNASAinput? Would you say MakeLoTRImage, MakeLotrImage, or MakeLoTRimage?

Yes. Yes you would. — mendel 14:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
So, there’s no standard for acronyms in CamelCase? —Frungi 04:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
There's really no standard, period Consider it descriptive rather than prescriptive (although a particular shop might insist on it, and might also insist on a particular way of handling acronyms). Of those examples I suspect the ones which begin their final word with a lowercase letter would be the least common, and the ones that don't affect the capitalization of their acronyms would be most common. — mendel 15:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The Java conventions don't seem to go into the necessary level of detail, although Everything2 implies that in practice initialisms are left in upper case in Java. It also points out that Microsoft takes the other approach, as long as the initialism is more than 2 letters. Here is one example of converting to all capitals (resulting in 574 changes). Here is a discussion about the matter. And here looks like a JavaScript project that doesn't use all capitals. Personally I prefer all capitals for initialisms, but would be quite happy with the other style for true acronyms (using the original definition - see acronym and initialism). Anyway I have added a statement that there is no standard. Open4D (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

Should't the section "CamelCase and coding standards" be placed after the "History" section? Now that CamelCase is a conspicuous item of mainstream culture, methinks that the article should be addressed primarily to the general reader, rather than to computer programmers... Jorge Stolfi 02:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone had moved the 'current computing usage' section (relabeled 'Software Engineering') into the middle of the history section, breaking its flow. I restored the order as above ('History' first, 'Current usage' later). Jorge Stolfi 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mobile phones?

The article claims "CamelCase has also become common among mobile phone users, thanks to the popularization of SMS (Short message service) in the late 1990s. With only 160 characters per one short text message, CamelCase makes it possible to optimize the message by excluding the spaces." Is this really true? I have never seen a text written in CamelCase. In fact, I rarely see texts using capitals at all, since they take longer to input on most phones. Everyone I know saves space by lvng vwls out, if they even bother to do that (since modern phones allow more than 160 chars, and predictive entry makes typing real words easier). But things might be different outside the UK...

You are correct. It might be tried now and again, but it is not common. Spaces (and much more) are left out by using the uppper case only versions of phrases like LOL. I am going to remove that and see who edits it from there. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. It's still used heavily - at least here in Belgium. So I think removing this is not the right way to go, maybe mentioning that it's more common in some countries than others, but removing information is IMHO not the best choice...
Ludootje 13:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Sources, they are important. That is all. (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Justifying reversion of "Spread" section

I have reverted the following paragraphs to their former version, because they seemed inappropriate in several ways:

Some of these examples (such as "wordperfect" and "quicktime") are perfectly good English words, CamelCased, rather than several words concatenated to each other, and as such do not necessarily demonstrate a computer-programming influence on popular culture. Other examples (such as "playstation") are similarly intended to resemble ordinary English words ("workstation").

Reasons: (1) I wonder whether un-hyphenated "wordperfect" and "quicktime" are really "perfectly good English words"; on the other hand, they certainly are "several words concatenated to each other"; (2) the issue of whether they are English words or not is irrelevant for the question of why they were CamelCased; (3) no one claimed that they were CamelCased by *direct* influence from computer programmers, but only that the style may have become fashionable for that reason; (4)those two examples are software products, so direct computer-programming influence is in fact quite likely.

As as often the case with capitalization fads, it can be difficult for mere mortals to keep straight which brand names use CamelCase. The CamelCase fashion has become so pervasive that it is often incorrectly applied to names that do not use it officially, as in FireFox. The same is true of brand names, formerly CamelCased in its official form, such as MicroSoft, and those formerly all-capitalized, such as UseNet.

Reasons: (1) "mere mortals" is not "encyclopedic" style; (2) the original phrase "names that do not use [CamelCase] officially" already covers both all-caps and standard capitalization, so there is no need for a separate sentence; (3) The History section of the Microsoft article does not support the claim that the name was "formerly CamelCased in its official form" (it was hyphenated with lowercase "soft").
Jorge Stolfi 11:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Camel or Pascal?

Microsoft (and many other internet sources, easy to google) considers casing being presented here PascalCase and camelCase being another one. Who's mistake is this? Marek 00:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See CamelCase#Variations and synonyms; the names UpperCamelCase and lowerCamelCase are used there, and mention of PascalCase is given too. Noel (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

In-word capitals in other languages - is this CamelCase?

In German, there is a common (though not standard) usage of capital "I"s inside nouns to make them gender-neutral: Binnen-I (German wikipedia article) Example: "BürgerInnen", short for "Bürgerinnen und Bürger", meaning "[male as well as female] citizens". It looks like CamelCase but I'm not sure if this phenomenon should be discussed under "CamelCase" at all. Here, the second part of the word is not a noun but the female suffix "-in" (singular) or "-innen" (plural), and the capitalizing of the i says "this part is optional". It's similar to gender-neutralizing wildcards used in other languages, like Spanish "-@s" or "-*s" (meaning "-os/-as"), or Dutch "-*s" (meaning "-ers/-sters").-- 16:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this was the right spot to add this note, but the examples cited for Irish and Scots Gaelic are only CamelCase because the word to which the prefix was added was already capitalized (Albanach, Éire, etc.). Words which aren't capitalized before prefixing don't become CamelCased. (Cf. the proverb "Go néirí an tá leat," in which the 'n' is prefixed.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral name

The page currently gives the misleading impression that CamelCase is some kind of official name for this phenomenon, which I don't think is true. I think the page should have a neutral name like "Internal capitalization" and list CamelCase as one common name. Would anyone object if I did this? --Dtcdthingy 10:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I did a web search, and discovered that "CamelCase" is the preferred term:
  • 23,400 for "Camel Case"
  • 42,900 for "CamelCase"
  • 841 for "Internal capitalization"
so almost anything would be preferable to "Internal Capitalization", which is a term nobody seems to use (or know). Noel (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
PS: When you did the move, you didn't fix all the many redirects which pointed to it, resulting in a lot of broken Wikipedia:Double redirects. (Actually, I guess that was a feature, not a bug - when I moved it back, I didn't have to fix them all again.) Noel (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

In line with the policy that the term used in a redirect should be visible at the top of the article, I did a modest number of searches to see which of the many redirects to this page should be included as explicit terms in the article text. Here's what I got:

  • 1,420 for "Bicapitalization"
  • 263 for "BumpyCase"
  • 2,260 for "InterCaps"
  • 49 for "Intercapitalization"
  • 72 for "Mixed-case identifier"
  • 18,200 for "MixedCase"
  • 635 for "PascalCase"

Note that this isn't all of the redirects - I didn't have the energy to try them all! Anyway, I set an arbitrary boundary of 1,000, and made mention of all that had more than that many web hits. Noel (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you miss understand my point about having a neutral name. While in some limited contexts it is known as CamelCase, it is not the common name in other contexts. When people do a search on wikipedia and discover the page is called CamelCase, they'll assume that's what it's correctly called in all contexts, which is completely not true. I was not proposing that Internal Capitalization is the correct name, just that it is neutral. (PS sign off with your actual username) --Dtcdthingy 09:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
in some limited contexts it is known as CamelCase??? Over 75,000 hits for "Camel Case" and "CamelCase" together? Some "limited contexts". Noel (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I mean that it's known by other names in other contexts (most commonly, no name at all). This is why there's a problem with Wikipedia unilaterally declaring all usages to be "CamelCase". --Dtcdthingy 15:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
So what are these other names? We can look them up in Google, and see if any are more common than "Camel Case". (Yes, undoubtly the computer-related usess are going to have a bias on web pages, but I don't know how to correct for that - plus to which as more of the culture moves onto the web, it becomes a better reflection of overall social usage. If you have some easy way to search printed media for the frequency of the various names, that would be most useful.) But the Wikipedia standard is to keep articles at the most common name of a person or thing, and so far I have seen no evidence that any other name is "mo[re] common". And we're not unilaterally declaring all usages to be "CamelCase" - they article explicitly says that other terms are used (see also above), and mentions many of them. Any time you have a thing that has several names, we have to pick one to put the article at, with Wikipedia:Redirects from the other - is every case in which we have done so Wikipedia unilaterally declaring that the other names are somehow inapplicable? Noel (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I almost hate to say this, but google hits are not considered reliable sources of information. What I do want to mention is that the term 'medial capitals not only sounds more professional, but is used by the OED.

-- trlkly 11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


While scanning my 1977-vintage Shorter Oxford English Dictionary some weeks ago for interesting words for Wiktionary, I discovered the word "HeLa". Sadly I've lost my notes on this word and no longer have access to this dictionary. m-w online seems to have an entry but it's a bit confusing: it could be HeLa cell in full and is named after a person who died in 1951 but the year the word/spelling was first used is not noted. Perhaps somebody could look it up and add some comment to the article. It could very well predate all other cases except the Scottish surnames. — Hippietrail 11:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The entry says "HeLa 1953 (f. the name, Helen Lane, of the patient from whom the original tissue was taken.) Used attrib. to designate a strain of human epithelial cells maintained in tissue culture and derived originally from tissue from a carcinoma of the cervix. Occas. absol." Adrian Robson 07:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


I've just added OuLiPo which is more commonly capitalised as Oulipo but appears on as OuLiPo on the movement's official website. I saw it in CamelCase in the introduction to an English translation of one of the works of Perec or Queneau published in 1993. 1993 is also the first time it appears on Usenet in CamelCase. — Hippietrail 02:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The CamelCase spelling is also used in Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue at least in the 2001 printing. The book was originally published in 1990 but I don't yet know which spelling was used in that edition. — Hippietrail 03:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The movement is much older: it was founded in 1960!. Also "OuLiPo" is an example of "French acronym style": syllable-based intead of letter-based, in order to be more prnouceable. At least I have seen a few other examples. Will try to fix that. Jorge Stolfi 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely this isn't really an example, its a website name, and as websites don't allow spaces it has to be all one word... --EAi 16:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's the reason it is an example, but it's worse than that anyhow -- "" is the name of the software, too. There's nothing called just "OpenOffice" anymore, but it was StarOffice and OpenOffice before it was — mendel 16:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Including domain suffixes in the name of anything other than an Internet hostname itself is something that, in a just world, would be punished by execution by firing squad. *Dan T.* 18:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In this instance, ".org" was appended because an unaffiliated company owns the "OpenOffice" trademark. —Lifeisunfair 18:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


The FedEx example is nonsense. FedEx does have a live registration on "Federal Express" as words (the offical phrase is 'typed drawing'), in addition to registrations of the words in certain stylized forms. The registstation number is 0971628. Please pull the example after reveiwing. 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at. What's wrong with the "FedEx" example? —Lifeisunfair 01:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


One possible origin (or at least influence) of CamelCase may be the use of chemical formulas in chemistry. NaCl is sodium chloride, for example, and has been for ages. Basically, any chemical element in the periodic table with a two-letter atomic symbol, used in a formula with another one, would have the appearance of being in CamelCase. Aumakua 20:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Only for formulae where the elements are combined in a ratio of 1:1. This doesn't work so well in other ratios, viz. Bi2Te3. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


I just noticed that old terms such as OuLiPo were moved out of the timeline. This makes sense in that there is a new section for prehistory and because the timeline is currently bound to a specific section which precludes prehistory. I think the timeline is a primary piece of this article and should be moved to its own section with all of the old terms replaced. Even old family names can go at the very top with no date or n/a etc. Thoughts? — Hippietrail 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, except that it would make the list way too long, and it will be very hard to locate all examples. Also, building a timeline is useful when there is some genetic connection between the items; but prior to the "computer era" the uses seem fairly independent of each other.
In fact, it will be impractical to add all the modern CamelCased proper names to that list, or even those that have Wikipedia articles. I think that we should start trimming the list and keep only the most noteworthy examples. (For instance, the Guardian supplement titles seem too banal to mention.)
Perhaps we should also split the list, moving the most notable examples pre-1980 to the "early" section?
Jorge Stolfi 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It will definitely need some judicious trimming. Maybe some full list can exist in a subpage or such but probably not worth the trouble. I think old even obscure ones and prehistoric ones are the most interesting in the timeline, the start of the flurry, the conversion to CamelCase of known companies etc no matter what era, the rest of the flurry and very modern ones is of little interest I think. — Hippietrail 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of CamelCase...

This entry does not prove a strong enough case that this style of capitalization is known predominantly as "CamelCase." Furthermore, the history of the term "CamelCase" is not presented in a way that supports such common usage.

Working in news media for more than decade, I have never heard of this term. It's always been referred to as "InterCaps" in my experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Navstar (talkcontribs) 03:07, 17 April 2006.

"InterCaps" is the designation with which I'm most familiar, but a couple of Google searches render it quite obvious that "CamelCase" is the more popular term. —David Levy 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess it matters among whom you consider its popularity. The "geek crowd" seems to like the terminology "CamelCase", so that will do well in Google searches, but that doesn't mean it's hit the mainstream in the "outside world". *Dan T.* 03:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a valid point, but what else do we have to go by? We have to pick one term to serve as the article's title, and the only available evidence that I know of points to "CamelCase" as the most common.
And of course, the same type of argument could be applied to "InterCaps." Navstar's professional background is in news, and I (a college student) have been exposed to the term via my studies of the print and broadcast media; perhaps this designation is prevalent mainly in the communications industries. —David Levy 04:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend calling them medial capitals throughout the article, and mentioning that the jargon terms InterCaps and CamelCase have been invented to describe the phenomenon. Like the similarly recent coinage "snowclone", there's little etymological history to the term "CamelCase", it's just a popular meme that the geek community propagates and Wikipedia has run with it. 10:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with 195.173. Oxford claims that the correct term is medial capitals. See this link.
-- trlkly 11:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
+1 for medial capitals. CamelCase is jargon and not so clearly defined as this article implies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

History of underscore

I know my contribution about the influence of Unix and C language system programming is not at the same level as the rest of the text. I do, however, believe that the treatment of the underscore which developed early in the C/Unix culture is notable to this article. My treatment is particularly inappropriate for dropping (more or less correctly) highly technical terms such as "translation unit" into the discussion without proper definition. I'm too close to the subject to choose a bad synonym. Feel free to abuse my text in the service of a better article. MaxEnt 17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on histor of underscore usage may be valid, but this article is about CamelCase, not underscore. I have moved that section to the underscore article. Jorge Stolfi 02:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger of content from CamelCase and Wiki

CamelCase and Wiki is short and, as a topic, directly relevant to the topic of CamelCase: CamelCase is commonly used in many wikis on the web. I suggest merging - Chris Wood 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Why is it "directly" relevant? It is, at most, an example of the use of CamelCase. It would probably be a fairly obscure one were it not for the fact that this is Wikipedia. If someone wanted to write an article on "CamelCase in Java" or "CamelCase at FedEx" or "CamelCase at Bob's Website," those would presumably also be separate articles. A link in the "See also" section seems fine to me. SnowFire 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's directly relevant because wikis are where most people will first come into contact with CamelCase as a practice and as a concept. If you were such a person and you were to go looking for "InterCaps" or "CamelCase" in the Wikipedia, you'd therefore expect to see wikis mentioned on the resulting page. If there were other pages like "CamelCase in Java" or "CamelCase at FedEx", then I'd suggest we add a section on uses and some links within it. But since this is not the case, and CamelCase and Wiki is itself short, I'd suggest not having the separation. - Chris Wood 14:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it's relevant at all and if you look at the examples of trade names that have used it (or have been mistakenly thought to have used it) you will find it's been around much longer than Wikis have. In fact, there are millions of people on this planet who regularly see CamelCase in various places and yet they've never heard of a Wiki. Or, if they have, they've never actually seen one.
No, the merger is a really bad idea, if you ask me. It would just confuse the issue. I have no qualms about a reference to CamelCase in the Wiki article and vice-versa. That makes prefect sense. --angrykeyboarder 10:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I still disagree, but I won't force a change. Instead, do you mind if I split off the last paragraph of the "Coding standards" section to a new section or subsection to highlight the wiki use? The link to CamelCase and Wiki is currently not prominent enough, IMHO. -- Chris Wood 10:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Spread to mainstream usage

Under the heading "Spread to mainstream usage", the article states:

"During the same period in which personal computers exposed hacker culture to a more mainstream audience in the 1980s and 1990s, CamelCase became fashionable for corporate trade names, first in computer-related fields but later expanding further into the mainstream."

However, the list that follows is only weak support for this thesis, since the first two entries in the list, ShopKo and AstroTurf, have nothing to do with computers. Also, the article earlier mentions CinemaScope and VistaVision, which go back to the 1950s; it's a little odd to have this long list of camelcased trademarks beginning in 1962, so that the list excludes the very first instances (like CinemaScope). --Mathew5000 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)\\

This section also suffers from severe overlinking. — VoxLuna 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Background: multi-word identifiers -- Cobol, Fortran

I deleted "pioneer" from "pioneer programming language COBOL". COBOL is hardly a pioneering programming language

I deleted all the Fortran text -- "The contemporary "algebraic" language Fortran reserved the hyphen as the minus operator, but allowed spaces to be arbitrarily embedded into identifiers, so that "TOTAMP" could be written "TOT AMP" (or "TO TAMP"). (This feature was of little use, however, because most Fortran compilers did not allow identifiers longer than six letters.)".

While Fortran did allow spaces in identifiers, the sentence above implies that Fortran had that rule as CamelCase stated it and "so that" implies design intent for that rule. Neither is the case. The Fortran rule was that blanks were not significant - you could embed blanks in anything: identifiers, keywords, operators, numerical values, .... The actual Fortran rule does not contribute to the multi-word identifier discussion. Rwwww 04:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK about the use of spaces and the six-letter limit. However, the rest of the sentence is relevant, IMHO: it explains why FORTRAN (and Algol) did not adopt the COBOL solution. Jorge Stolfi 02:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In Germany

When did spellings like KaDeWe become in vogue?

  • Good question. Are there other examples? If the practice in German is older than the "spead to mainstream usage", it should be mentioned together with the French practice (OuLiPo etc.). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

PascalCase is not camelCase

I take issue with the inclusion of PascalCase as a type of camelCase. To me, the two are different, though similar, styles to type multiple words without spaces. This article states that PascalCase is a type of camelCase. I disagree. Another person brought up the same issue and the response was basically "Read the article, where we say that PascalCase is a type of camelCase." I disagree.

First of all, not going into the history of the style itself, but the terminology of "PascalCase" and "camelCase" are unique to computer programming. As such, my recollection of the history in that arena is that in the beginning, there was C. K&R bequoth that underscore style be used. ALL_CAPS for #define's, and all all_lowers for variables. I forget about constants. Eventually PascalCase became en vogue, though it wasn't called that. Hungarian was still PascalCase, but required an al (all lower, abbreviated) prefix. It wasn't until 1995 when Java hit the scene that I remember camelCase, and it had a specific purpose to distinguish it from PascalCase. I have no doubt though that Mesa used it first. It wasn't until years later that read this specific verbiage to differentiate the two, but they were definitely described as different things.

I believe that the two names should be seperated into different articles with links between them. What reasons are there to include them as one, and what reasons are there to make PascalCase a "type" of camelCase?

Dmprantz 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Use in given names

The article should make reference to the increased popularity of given names (at least in the United States) that follow this convention: DeShawn, JaMarcus, LaTisha, etc. Or is there already an article discussing this? Funnyhat 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe this is sufficiently covered by the article now. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


How is this Wikiword? I was under the impression that a "wikiword" was challenging way of gaining a new password, for example Monday: letter A- main page, first link starting with a is Your Password for that day, Tuesday: type in that word then first link starting with b etc, it is a very safe way of making sure no-one knows your password, (a+b were an example only). Most companies use a variation of this method. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thedec (talkcontribs) 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC). D. BULL 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) there its signed now

Wrong wrong wrong

Bactrian Camel.jpg

Pascal case is NOT Camel case! The articles definition of upper Camel case and lower Camel case are in fact Pascal case and Camel case.

I'll explain this in the same manor as one of my University professors. Look at the picture of the camel. See the humps? See the space before the humps, between the humps, and after the humps? Put two or more words together and make them look like the camel.

For example,

Funny, that picture looks to me like HeadHumpHump, not headHumpHump... ;-) 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
To me it looks more like H_eadHumpHump... (shudder!) 8-) --Jorge Stolfi 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
True. Article is wrong. Camel case example: camelCaseExample. Pascal case example: PascalCaseExample. There are such things as upper and lower camel case. This is absurd. --Abatishchev (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Is TitleCase different from Title case - capitalizing almost all words, but leaving the spaces in? 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever come across 'Title Case'; each word separated by spaces and the first letter of each word capitalised. I've never heard of 'camelCase' being called 'Title Case'. Let me know if you have a good source. peterl 03:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottish CamelCase

Can you call the capitalisation patterns in McDonalds and McMurdo an example of CamelCase? Carcharoth 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting one that I never considered before. I'd have no idea really.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The view assumed in the article is that "camel case" is the same as "medial capitals", i.e. the practice of indicating the element boundaries in a compound word by capitalizing their initial letters. Therefore instances of that practice are instances of camel case, even if they predate the term (just as we say that T-Rex was a "dinosaur" even though there is no evidence that the latter term was in current use at the time 8-). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Dinosaur metaphor fails because here, humans did the naming. Nobody called it Camel Case back then, that fact is important to history. So what do we do, "retcon" the names of real things? Casey Jones wasn't called an "engineperson". (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

History -- Origins

Hi -- none of the history section has reliable citations and one has been tagged as original research for quite some time. These "histories" are beginning to be propagated around the Internet--if they're correct and cited, that's great. If they're not verifiable, this is a bad thing. I'm going to cut these sections in a few days--down to the smallest sections that have any sources. They will still be in the article histories if someone wants to bring them back with reliable sources. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the two theories are just that at the moment; but the lack of references should not be reason enough to omit them altogether.
As for the 'Alto keyboard' theory, I programmed in Mesa on the Alto, both at Stanford and at Xerox PARC, and I can attest that indeed the Alto keyboard had no underscore key; so the Mesa satandard necessarily adopted CamelCase. Moreover, one of the people who were at PARC when the Alto was designed told me (ca. 1990) that indeed CamelCase had been adopted because of the keyboard, rather than vice-versa. (Unfortunately I forgot his last name --- John something...)
As for the 'lazy programmer' theory, I am not sure where I heard it, but I believe that it is the justification that most CamelCase lovers give for preferring it to underscore.
I also heard from PARC old-timers that Wirth adopted CamelCase for Modula because he got used to it during his sabatical at PARC. Jorge Stolfi 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Free link redirects here...

...but the article doesn't describe what a free link is. Shinobu 10:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • That was a leftover from the time when this article was mostly about the use of Camel Case for wikilinks, especially in the early days of Wikipedia. Someone has fixed that redirect already. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage in IDEs

I added a little blurb at the end of the "Programming style" section that shows how more complex IDEs can utilize the CamelCase convention for coding shortcuts. I use Eclipse in the example, simply because that's where I discovered CamelCase-based shortcuts, but if anyone think that sounds biased to Eclipse, please feel free to neutralize it. Endasil 20:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


The article defines CamelCase as using an initial capital letter, but it is in fact commonly defined as having a lower case initial letter (see "Wrong wrong wrong" above). The only relevant reference (number 2) defines CamelCase as having a lower case intial letter, contradicting the article. See also The article, if not completely wrong, should make it clear that there are competing definitions of Camel Case. - AR 16:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The article already does that, right away: see the "Variations and Synonyms" section.
    Surely most people will understand the term 'CamelCase' as covering both variants. (If it didn't, how would one refer to the other variant?).
    The reference you cite is not the definitive authority: the term is quite a bit older than dot-NET, and is not "owned" by Microsoft...
    All the best, Jorge Stolfi 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Following your recent re-wording, I agree that the article is now clear. I've removed the misleading tag. Thanks. - AR 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'Background: multi-word identifiers' part

It's second paragraph starts with:
'Some early programming languages, notably Lisp (1958) and COBOL (1959), addressed this problem by allowing a hyphen ("-") to be used between words of compound identifiers, as in "END-OF-FILE". However, this solution was not adequate for algebraic-oriented languages like FORTRAN (1955) and ALGOL (1958), which needed the hyphen as a subtraction operator.'

Well, that's not exactly true. It's not that Lisp is more primitive than Algol or Fortran because it permits using a hyphen inside a variable name. In Fortran, Algol or other languages with similar syntax you could write something like 'foo-bar-baz' instead of 'foo - bar - baz' to save space. But in Lisp, where you use Polish (prefix) notation, you can write just '(- foo bar baz)', so allowing the programmer to skip the first space would make the code actually more confusing to potential reader. That's why Lisp dialects force programmers to always use space as a separator, thus allowing the use of special characters inside variable names. (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The term "algebraic-oriented" is meant to designate languages that allow formulas to be written in a notation similar to common algebra, with infix arithmetic operators and no separating spaces. That includes Fortran ("formula translator"), Algol, Basic, C, Pascal, and many more; but not Cobol or Lisp. The designers of most "algebraic" languages naturally thought that "-" should be used for infix subtraction rather than compound identifiers; not to mention that Fortran only allowed 6 characters in identifiers, so that was definitely a non-issue in that case. Lisp can use "-" for compound ids because Lisp formulas are written in fully-parenthesized prefix notation, with mandatory spaces between operator and operands — a convention which is hardly ever used in algebra, even in specialized contexts. Hence I would think that "algebraic-oriented language" hardly applies to Lisp. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)



Would the first name 'LeToya' be consindered CamelCase? As this is a name and not just a compound word made for commercial reasons, it might be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAUBO (talkcontribs) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:CamelCase sign.jpg

A road sign near Kissimmee, Florida with CamelCase

The name of the street is Champions Gate Blvd, not ChampionsGate Blvd. The reason it appears on the sign like that is because the words wouldn't fit on the sign otherwise. This is not an example of CamelCase. Kingturtle (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • In that case, the image is rather inappropriate. It has been removed already, I see. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms like "DoD"

I'm not sure if acronyms like "DoD" (for "Department of Defense") are really camel case. The case of each of the words in this and similar acronyms in English comes from the spelling of the spelled out words in title case. It's not a matter of compound words.

German has a similar mechanism. All acronyms maintain their original case in ordinary spelling, that is, nouns are capitalized (as they always are in German) and other words are not. Thus, the German term for "Incorporated" is "Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung" (roughly, "corporation with limited liability") and is abbreviated "GmbH". Bostoner (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Just because a sequence of letters has 'bumps' like a camel doesn't mean it's camel case. The only camel case versions of 'Department of Defense' are departmentOfDefence and DepartmentOfDefence, where the change between lower and upper case represents a missing space. In "DoD", the lower case o presumably just corresponds to the fact that the word "of" is not normally capitalized in the original (due to the capitalization convention being used).
(...part of an old reply...)the question is whether we can regard "camel case" as a synonym of "medial capitals", or whether we should regard it as a narower concept, namely "medial capitals applied to compound words and commercial names, but not acronyms and traditional names"? If the former, then (...) acronyms like "DoD" would be a borderline case. If the latter, these usages should still be mentioned as related concepts. t sould be noted that this article originally described CamelCase in computer contexts only. Some time later, it was expanded to describe the spread from computer culture to common marketing usage. Then someone added "also called medial capitals" to the definition, so "McCreight" and "NaCl" and "DoD" had to be included too. (...) All the best,--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. (...) In "DoD", the lower case o is not there to separate anything, but presumably just corresponds to the fact that the word "of" is not normally capitalized in the original (due to the capitalization convention being used). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Open4D (talkcontribs) 12:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You have a point that "DoD" is not camel case. (...) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemical formulas

And as for chemical formulae, remember that chemical symbols are either 1 single capital letter (e.g. H) or 1 capital letter followed by 1 lower case letter (e.g. Na). Just because some chemical compounds (e.g. NaCl) happen to consist of two 2-letter chemical symbols with a ratio of 1:1 doesn't mean those particular compounds are written in camel case. Most compounds do not fit those criteria, including COS and Bi2Te3.
So I will remove that bit now. Open4D (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is no " official" definition of CamelCase. The term was originally coined by computer hackers to refer to its usage in computer contexts. However the concept of using mixed upper and lower case to separate parts of a compound word (which is the case in "McLean", "CinemaScope", "NaCl" etc., but not in stuldy caps and Tall Man lettering) already occurred before that time, and has since spread out to common usage in product names and such. Of course, a new word can refer to orlder things and to things that were not foreseen by the people who coined it.
If asked to describe the capitalization of "NaCl" and "McLean", many computer hackers would probably say that they are written in "camel case" . Typesetters might use their established name "medial capitals". Ordinary peple may use a descriptive phrase like "mixed upper and lower case to indicate how the word should be parsed".
So, the question is whether we can regard "camel case" as a synonym of "medial capitals", or whether we should regard it as a narower concept, namely "medial capitals applied to compound words and commercial names, but not acronyms and traditional names"? If the former, then "McLean" and "NaCl" should definitely be covered (...). If the latter, these usages should still be mentioned as related concepts.
It sould be noted that this article originally described CamelCase in computer contexts only. Some time later, it was expanded to describe the spread from computer culture to common marketing usage. Then someone added "also called medial capitals" to the definition, so "McCreight" and "NaCl" and "DoD" had to be included too.
Perhaps it is time to rename the article to "medial capitals" with " camel case" as a synonym. Then the point will be moot. All the best,--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. You have added back NaCl, DoD and HeLa, but I will leave it to others to resolve the issue and re-remove them if appropriate. The core of our disagreement probably comes down to this, "using mixed upper and lower case to separate parts of a compound word (which is the case in "McLean", "CinemaScope", "NaCl" etc. ...)" I don't disagree that it is the case in "McLean" and "CinemaScope", but I do disagree about "NaCl", and also "DoD" and "HeLa" which I removed at the same time. They aren't even words. "NaCl" is a chemical formula and the other two are abbreviations. In chemical formulae, the mixed upper and lower case is not there to separate the elements, it is simply there wherever the elements' symbols already include it. E.g. Sodium by itself is "Na" and not "na" or "NA". A chemical formula only appears to be CamelCase / medial capitals if it is a special case that consists entirely of 2-letter chemical symbols all with a ratio of 1:1. Most compounds do not fit those criteria, including COS and Bi2Te3. (...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Open4D (talkcontribs) 12:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
(...) I disagre about the chemical formulas. The reason why the symbol of sodium is "Na" rather than "NA" or "na" is precisely to allow proper parsing of formulas like "NaCl". |Thus the 19th century chemists has the same motivation as the 20th century programmers (and the much earlier scots etc.): write a compound term as a single unit (hence without spaces) but withut losng the unit boundaries. The same holds for HeLa. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on a definition that camel case is used to represent compound words, using the capitalisation of each word's leading letter rather than intervening spaces to distinguish the words that make it up - then I also agree that NaCl should not be included as an example of camel case - because
  • Na and Cl are not words, they are already symbolic abbreviations for sodium and chloride, combined in 1:1 ratio.
  • The rule does not work for other compound formulae, like the Bi2Te3 already mentioned.
  • SodiumChloride, however, would be OK, as would HenriettaLacks cells
They do make sense as examples of mixed case. I have updated the article to reflect this.
However, were were to relax the definition of camel case so that it doesn't mandate the components being words, then NaCl and its ilk would be fine. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
But note that (1) CamelCase is used by programmers and marketeers to separate abbreviations as well as full words, an in "eBay", "iPod", "TiVo", "SeaTac". So the fact that "Na" and "Cl" are abbreviation is a moot point. Also (2) there is no doubt that Berzelius and later chemists chose "Na" over "NA" or "na" precisely to make formulas like "NaCl" be unambiguous without parsing. Ditto for "DiCaprio" etc. So if "BegPt" and "EndPt" are camel case, then "NaCl" is too. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely Na, Cl etc are not words or abbreviations but 'symbols'? After all, many of the symbols are not related to the English name of the element, eg Na (sodium), K (potassium), Hg (mercury). They are also of course the same in all languages, even those that don't use the Roman alphabet. Booshank (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "symbol" is properly used for arbitrary non-alphabetical signs like '±' and '♣', or graphically modified letters like '¥' and '©'. The "symbols" of the chemical elements are indeed abbreviations of their Latin or latinized names (natrium, khalium, hydrargyrium, etc.), which were commonly used by chemists at the times of Berzelius — even when writing in vernacular. I still see no difference betwen "NaCl" and "McLean", "SeaTac", "iPod", etc.... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The symbols of the chemical elements are properly refered to as such. For example the page for every element lists 'name, symbol, number'. Similarly there are the symbols for SI units, these are also always refered to as symbols. If we are going to regard NaCl as CamelCase then I think other symbols such as kJ have to be as well.Booshank (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are called symbols, but they also are abbreviations.... But, OK, this line of discussion will hardly take us somewhere. Let me try another way. Consider this hypothetical lead paragraph:

CamelCase (also written camel case) or medial capitals is the practice of using capitalization — instead of spaces, hyphens or other explicit marks — to indicate how a string of letters should be parsed into two or more parts; specifically, by capitalizing the first letter of every part, except possibly for the first part. (**)

This definition may be too awkward to use in the page, but I think it captures quite accurately the concept of camel case. By this definition, "sTUldYcApS" is not camel case, but almost all the other uses listed in the page are valid — just as valid as curRecPtr and YouTube. (Two examples which do not fit this definition are the German LeserInnen and Italian porgendoLe where the capitalization is not being used to separate things. Ditto for the prefixes of proper names in Gaelic, Swhahili, Bantu, etc. and the Tibetan tones like rLobsang; since those languages do not use medial caps when the base word is uncapitalized, the internal caps are not being used to indicate the parsing, but for other reasons. But DuPont and ZaSu and McLean qualify, as well as the Russian acronym and OuLiPo.)
Now, there is no question that the chemical element symbols were capitalized that way to make the parsing of NaCl and CoCO3 unambiguous even without spaces. So, Berzelius's notation is not only a valid example of camel case, but may be in fact the earliest conscious and systematic use of camel case. Indeed, now I think that Berzelius must be given credit as the inventor of CamelCase. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
CamelCase (or however we write it this week), as defined here, means capitalising the intial letter of words so that compound names or phrases are still rendered readable when intervening spaces are removed. On that basis, unfortunately, NaCl, HeLa, McClean, etc. are not examples of CamelCase. However, if we refer instead to the use of internal or medial capitals, then these others are naturally included. You can bet whatever you like that Berzelius was not thinking of camels when he defined that approach the chemical notation.
CamelCase is also defined as originating with computer programming, but examples of medial capitalisation exist from before this.
Hey, how about we have two different articles, with Medial capitals being the main article, and a sub-article for CamelCase. That way, the CamelClub programming diehards keep their own article, while the historical and linguistic purists also survive - then we can indeed have Berzelius as the father of it all. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like having an article for truck and another one for lorry. That would be proper for Wikitionary, which is about words; not for Wikipedia, which is about concepts.
I don't think that there is an "official" definition for "CamelCase". To most people, it is "defined" only by examples: "Camelcase is, like, NewAccountBalance or WordPerfect". The definition that you mention was invented by some editor of this article (it may even have been me, I don't remember!).
As you remarked, that definition is incorrect as it stands today, because it says "words". Any programmer would agree that "CurrRecPtr" and "ParseHTMLString" are examples of CamelCase; but "Curr", "Rec", "Ptr" and "HTML" are abbreviations, not words. So the definition must be amended, possibly along the lines of (**) above.
Now, if abbreviations are OK, then "NaCl" is an instance of Camel case, too. Then we must give more credit to Berzelius as the first one to systematically use CamelCase. I don't think that the programmers who re-invented the concept in the 1980s for program identifiers were influenced by the chemical notation; but it would not be the first time that an old idea was independently rediscovered. (For instance, it seems that the FFT was invented by Gauss in the early 1800s, then re-invented by Cooley and Tukey in the 1960s.)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
They are kind of two things, especially as they have two apparently separate histories, with Medial capitals describing exactly what it is and starting perhaps with chemical notation, and Camel case being a particular incarnation of it in relation to programming (although I always knew it as hump-back notation). I was after a third-way that kept everyone happy, but sometimes that just won't wash, so ... back to the head-butting then. If an article has been created using the latest in vogue name, then enough evidence surfaces to show it existed before under a different name, let's use the accurate name and explain it's also known as xxxxxxxxxx. On that basis, then, we should have one article called Medial capitals. It's a true, generic name for the article, with Camel case being a more recent incarnation of the same practice , principally by programmers. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. But note that there are two issues here (1) should the capitalization of "iPod" and "NaCl" be described in the same article; and (2) should that article be named "camel case" or "medial capitals". For (1), methinks that there is no argument for the contrary. For (2), I am not sure: age seems less important than frequency of use, so I would vote for "camel case" IF that is indeed the most common name AMONG ALL READERS, not just among computer types. But it does not matter much, really --- hooray for redirects. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, they should all be covered by one article that covers the broad range of chemical notation, marketing names, scientific abbreviation, and various computer programming practices (Camel case, Pascal case, etc.) - however the article's title should not be a narrow term (like Camel case) but something that covers them all. Medial capitals would seem to do that adequately; is more accurate than Internal capitals because the term Medial implies that the capital marks a boundary, whereas internal just means that capitals occur somewHere witHin but without meaning anything; and as you say hoorah for redirects. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to loosen definition

A fair amount of disagreement on this discussion page is around the definition of camel case being compound words. If we were to relax this so that it meant combining two or more strings of text, where the boundary is indicated by capitalising the leading letter rather than using a space. This would then include:

  • McLean - as Mc is itself an abbreviation (for Mac, as in MacClean)
  • NaCl - as Na and Cl are themselves symbolic representations (for sodium and chloride)
  • HeLa - as He and La are themselves abbreviations (for Henrietta Lacks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyskinnedboy (talkcontribs) 00:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article as "medial capitals"

Perhaps this article should be renamed to "medial capitals"?
I suspect that "medial capitals" is an older name, and well established among the people who care most about the topic (typography, text layout, etc.) I wonder whether the name "camel case" is known outside the computer programming comunity?
In fact, even among programmers, I wonder whether "camel case" is popular enough to be the article's call title? Large segments of the programming community apparently use other names.
The renamed article might begin thusly:

Medial capitals or internal capitalization is the practice of writing compound words or phrases in which the words are joined without spaces and are capitalized within the compound—as in LaBelle, CinemaScope, BackColor, or iPod.
This practice is quite common in computer programming and related fields (where it is called camel case, CapWords, intercaps, and many other names), especially as a standard identifier naming convention in several programming languages.
Since the 1980s, internal capitalization became fashionable in marketing for names of products and companies. However, it is rarely used in formal written English, and most style guides recommend against its use.

What do you think? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In a word? No. CamelCase is the name of this convention, plain and simple. The fact that you didn't even correctly spell CameCase and you think it's a programmer's joke speaks tons about this proposal. To be blunt, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that CamelCase is the most widely accepted term for the convention. Steven Walling (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, I admit to be ignorant of that "fact". The references in the article seem to indicate that other names are current among certain communities. What is the evidence for CamelCase? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"Certain communities" have their own special names for everything, but that doesn't mean we use their name as the title of the article. CamelCase is quite simply the most commonly understood term for this convention. The technical name for the convention is medial capitals, but that's not what it's generally called. This is a general introductory encyclopedia, so we go with the most commonly used term even if it's not the professional jargon. Steven Walling (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I can believe that CamelCase is the most common name among computer folks. I am not saying that CamelCase is NOT the most popular name overall, only that it takes more than a "just is" statement. After all the term "CamelCase" itself is relatively new (1995 if we believe the article).
Google gives 278,000 hits for "CamelCase" (in all capitalizations), 58,000 for "camel case", 25,000 for "intercaps", and a few thousands each for most of the other variants listed. BUT... of the first 500 or so Google hits for "CamelCase", almost all of them are for various old versions of this Wikipedia article, or other related Wikipedia articles! So could this be the ultimate "self-verified wikipedia article"? 8-) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
From what I have seen, Wikipedians prefer entries with fully qualified names rather than their more commonly used abbreviations, using redirection to handle the variations (e.g., USA is a redirect to the article United States). In this way, while the term CamelCase might be popular with a sizeable proportion of software developers, it's use in marketing for naming products and even cities, suggests that the topic is of interest to a wider community. Wikipedia is not designed as an in-house tool for web-folk, but for everyone who accesses and uses the web. If the correct term for this is media capitals or internal capitals, then that is what the article should be called. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer CamelCase, it seems to me to be a more common term. I have never heard of the other one. Chillum 03:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read the earlier section on this Talk page titled #Never heard of CamelCase... for a testimonial from someone who has been using this concept professionally for many years but had never heard it called "CamelCase" or "camel case". Note also that many of the Google hits for "CamelCase" are actually copied from (old versions of) the Wikipedia article . After all, the article is at least 5--6 years old and quite visible. If we were to discount those hits, and count only primary sources, and take into account the "geek boost factor", then I wonder which name would win? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have read through the discussion. Google hits mean very little. What do reliable sources documenting this style of capitalization call it? The only books I have ever read about this in call it CamelCase. Chillum 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the Oxford English Dictionary [18]:

Q. What is the name for the now common practice (mostly in commercial branding) of forming a word containing two capital letters e.g. SureStart, WordPad, ShopTalk etc.?
A. The practice you mention is described thus in the article on capitals in The New Fowler's Modern English Usage by R.W. Burchfield (OUP 1998): "Medial capitals. Worth noting is the newish mostly commercial, habit of inserting a medial capital letter into the name of a product, a process, etc.: e.g. CinemaScope, InterLink."

--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A tale of two articles: Camelcase and Medial Capitals

There appear to be two schools of thought on CamelCase for programming, typified by upper CamelCase and lower camelCase. Either is fine for the majority of people reading this, because they have been drawn here not because they want to understand about programming use of medial capitals, but more and more because of the marketing use of medial capitals. Actually, that's the problem with this article being called CamelCase in the first place. The article is really about medial capitals (i.e. capital letters in the middle of a string). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed in earlier sections of this page. Consider replying there instead of here. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, how about we have two different articles, with Medial capitals being the main article, and a sub-article for Camel case. That way, the CamelClub programming diehards keep their own article, while the historical and linguistic purists also survive. The best of both worlds? Greyskinnedboy (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No. To do so is a clearly a POV fork, and is unacceptable. Steven Walling (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to the policy page -- as far as I can see this would not be a POV fork as the problem has only arisen because two different topics are trying to be squeezed into a single article. One topic is about the programming language construct CamelCase and the other is all the different forms of Medial capitals that have nothing to do with software development. This is about creating clarity where there is confusion, coming from a Neutral Point of View, so cannot really be called POV. Incidentally, the policy page says that forks should not be referred to as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing, which is not the case here. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what would be gained by the proposed split. There are already specialized articles on the technical aspects of the use of CamelCase in programming style, specifically on naming conventions (programming). This article contains a definition of the concept (which is valid for all uses, computer-related or not) and then covers two major historical topics: (1) the popularization of CamelCase among programmers in the 1970s, and (2) the spread of the style to the marketing world, in the subsequent decade. Clearly these two topics are connected and I fail to see how one might somehow hamper or distract from the other. The article also mentions the "prehistory" of the concept (such as chemical formulas) which IMHO is important because it shows that the idea was not invented by programmers (although they may have reinvented it). Al the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The history and prehistory of camel case is the basis of an article on medial capitals -- because camel case is an example of medial capitals not the other way around. The term camel case originated in programming, while most of the examples cited in this article are medial capitals and have nothing to do with programming. As there examples that predate programming styles, it would appear that rather than camel case spreading into the marketing world, medial capitals has continued growing ever more popular in a number of fields. IMHO the topic of medial capitals is the more significant of the two, with more history and richer examples, while camel case is important and deserves an exploration in its own right. My recommendation was not for a fork (as suggested) but for an article and a sub-article. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that "camel case" was originally just a new name for a special application of an old concept, and that the article should be renamed "medial capitals", it is quite clear to me that the spread of medial capitals in marketing after the 1980s was due to its association with computer stuff (and hence with mdernity). I remember a similar phenomenon in the 1960 and 1960 with a funny font that had been developed for optical character recognition (OCR), namely the OCR-A font. For a while, that font popped up all over the place --- for exactly the same reason. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Internal link to hump has nothing to do with this article

Removed internal link from hump since it directs to a completely unrelated article. kn100 —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

"CamelCase" or "camel case"?

(Starting a new section with bits removed from the section /*Proposal to rename article as "medial capitals"*/. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

P.S. Another argument for [renaming it as "medial capitals"] is that it would dodge the issue of whether the article should be called "camel case" (as proper English requires) or "CamelCase" (a cute joke that programmers(*) seem fond of). Note that we normally do not write "upper case" in UPPER CASE... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(*) of which I am one, if that is not obvious.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As to whether it should be CamelCase or camel case, I think Jorge has it right -- the exclusion of the intervening space and the capitalisation of the second word's leading letter does make it self-referencing in a way that could only be understood by those who are already familiar with it, and thus it would be fair to call it an in joke (much like the humour in the recursiveness of GNU standing for GNU's Not Unix, or PHP standing for PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor, although PHP was originally an initialism for Personal Home Page). If the name doesn't change it should at least have the space introduced (with a redirect bringing CamelCase here anyway). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't care what your argument is. Not putting the title of the CamelCase article in CamelCase seems to controvert basic common sense. Every single person showing up to read is going to immediately wonder why the title is not written properly. Steven Walling (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1) Please see the Wikipedia Manual of Style section on Article titles. I think you will find CamelCase breaks the rules there.
The initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in very rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where implied by normal capitalization rules (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects).
2) Only people already familiar with this approach being called CamelCase might expect the title to be written that way, other people know it as camel-back notation, hump-back, camel case, mixed caps, etc.
3) Regular users of Wikipedia are used to being presented with an article where the title is slightly different to the term they used for searching, and if that difference makes them question why, this is a good thing, because they will understand the topic better. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Note also the section #Neutral name above. Apparently the large Google score of "CamelCase" versus "Camel Case" (5:1 now) is a fairly recent phenomenon (it was more like 2:1 a few years ago). More evidence that Wikipedia itself is to blame for it... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think "Camel case" is a sensible name for the article. It is true we don't write UPPER CASE or a.b.b.r.e.v.i.a.t.i.o.n, so why name the article CamelCase? I support a move to Camel case for the reasons I just gave and the reasons given above. Chillum 02:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

TitleCase is not camelCase

This article lumps in the concept of "TitleCase" under "camelCase", but I don't think that's correct. "TitleCase" implies that the first letter of each word, including the first word, is capitalized. "camelCase" implies that only interior words (i.e., not the first word) are capitalized. (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does not lump "title case" with "camel case"; in fact, it states that they are distinct things. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

German example

In German, ... Example: LeserInnenbriefe ("letters from [male or] female readers") instead of Leserbriefe ("letters from readers") or Leserinnenbriefe ("letters from female readers").

I'm German, and nobody writes "Leserinnenbriefe" or anything like that. Use another word for example, not this. Maybee employees are MitarbeiterInnen (Mitarbeiter, Mitarbeiterinnen). The rule doesn't match all words (e. g. "HerrInnen" is wrong, Herr & Frau is better). The big I is only used when last part of the word is gender-releated. And many people say they aren't "-Innen" or such. -- (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try to fix that. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I finally got a round tuitt and replaced "LeserInnenbriefe" by "MitarbeiterInnen" as requested bove. German speakers please check the edit and confirm it (especilly the translation). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi i'm german as well and i have never seen anything written like this actually the german wiki site states that this has been used by feminists in the 80s but the correct form to present both genders is Mitarbeiter/-innen or Mitarbeiter(innen). So the usage of camel case was time limited and very specific to the cause of the feminist movement but never grammatical correct. so i would suggest to either add this to make clear that this was time limited or rather remove this part complete because it is and was never correct german nor is it commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

ICPC 2009 paper

There is a paper in ICPC 2009 studying readability of camel case vs. underscore in computer programming:

Maybe its contents could be summarized in the article. (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2009)

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 no consensus to move page at this time. Should a consensus form at a future time to rename this article, that will be fine, but for now there's not sufficient support for such a move. - GTBacchus(talk) 00:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

CamelCaseCamel case Relisted (see rationale below) — ækTalk 07:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC) — Per WP:MOSTM. Trademarks that are rendered in uppercase as a matter of corporate policy rather than because of an underlying linguistic reason are to be converted to the same regular sentence case that any other proper noun would appear in. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Rendering a title a noun in camel case or in any other unnecessary stylized fashion, without an underlying linguistic reason, appears inappropriate. WP:NAME notes that lower case is most appropriate, except for proper names. WP:MOSTM and WP:CAPS equally appear to show that stylized nouns or names are inappropriate. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose This article's title isn't a trademark; it is a name for the practice itself of doing what the nominator is opposing, to quote the article: "writing compound words or phrases in which the elements are joined without spaces, with each element's initial letter capitalized within the compound". Suggest as alternative Medial capitals. (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move as proposed, but Support move to Camel case. This is not a trademark or proper noun, and so there is no reason to capitalize "Case" in the title regardless of whether a space is included. --DAJF (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You are very right. That would place the article in line with Lower case and Letter case. I've ammended the move request to reflect such. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose title is not a trademark. It further is illustrative of the topic (ie. what is CamelCase?) so is useful. (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Speedy close nominator provides a reason that is not pertinent to this article (this is not a trademark) (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Noted. the reasoning has been amended to reflect that it is not a trademark but rather a stylized choice of a noun. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

rationale changed 05:58, 18 December 2009
  • Support strongly the move to "camel case", as per the second argument by the proposer. Failing that, second the suggection to move article to "medial capitals". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Camel case. It's - entertaining? - to have the article title as an example of the subject matter, but that doesn't override WP:NC. Tevildo (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose CamelCase is normally discussed in CamelCase, as a shorthand. WP:NC says to do what is recognizable (usually because it is common), as well as other requirements that have not come in to this discussion. Oppose medial capital on the same ground; we are written for lay readers, not for linquists - when a colloquial term exists, we should use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article titles should reflect what is most easily recognizable by readers and what is verifiable as in common use. If WP:MOSTM suggests something other than that, then that guideline is flawed and should be amended. olderwiser 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It does not say that actually. The MOSTM states Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable: OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice In short no problem here.-- (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The name is written like that on purpose to highlight the practice it describes. To change the spelling to avoid CamelCase spelling would be perverse and counter-intuitive. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: CamelCase appears to be the most common way this term is written. Jonathunder (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

relisted 07:23, 25 December 2009
  • Support, clear cut case of violation of WP:NC. This is an encyclopedia, not a clown show, and we need to discuss matters of grammatical abnormalities using correct terms. Just because other people cannot write English, doesn't mean that we should avoid good English ourselves. The self-referencing arguments portrayed in this discussion have no background in neither the English language nor in any Wikipedia convention. And for the record, I am not a linguist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenikk (talkcontribs) 11:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Our naming conventions dictate that our articles' titles reflect common usage, not prescribe usage that arguably is more linguistically sound. I'm baffled as to how this makes us "a clown show." —David Levy 11:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per its own definition; this discussion strains GF. Jack Merridew 18:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is clearly useful in illustrating what CamelCase is. (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is both the most common usage (which is preferred according to policy) and it is the most clear and common sense way to explain the convention. That's two extremely convincing reasons why it's in the best interest of our readers to keep the current title. The policy on naming convention only advises that the most common usage should be ignored to avoid names that are vulgar or pedantic. The current title is neither. Steven Walling 09:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose this rename as the current title is how every book I have ever read that uses it spells it CamelCase. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 09:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is an encyclopedia article and the purpose of its title is to convey information about its subject. Since no disambiguating intent can be inferred, the only consequence of renaming it to follow "correct" grammar would be to destroy any descriptive value the title currently has, in effect devaluing the entire article. I am torn on whether to regard the nom (and especially relisting it on Christmas Day) as merely a hilarious exercise in wikipedantry or as a textbook example of WP:GAME. (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Let me moderate this by stating that were there a referenced effort to rename this article medial capitals, I would offer it qualified support, since that title is not only more proper in style, but also descriptive. "Camel case" is neither stylistically consistent, etymologically informed or informative through tactile means; it is merely correct, something that constitutes a low bar for us to set as an encyclopedia. (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • The original rationale (about trademarks) appears to have generated some confusion among the !voters. Discounting comments that argue for/against the applicability of WP:MOSTM to this page, I don't see a clear consensus, so I'm boldly relisting. — ækTalk 07:23, 25 December 2009 (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.
  • A meta-comment: the people who are likely to vote here are obviously editors who have this page in their watchlist. Presumably they are mostly computer types (like myself) who enjoy nerd-plays like GNU = "GNU is Not Unix" (like myself) and who think that their view of the topic is more important than that of non-computer people (unlike myself). Which only shows the absurdity of the Wikipedia "voting" practices. Sigh. All the best, nonetheless, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    There is no Wikipedia voting practice. I did nothing resembling a "vote count" when I closed this request. I read the arguments, considered them in the light of usual practice over many similar cases, and made the best call I could, in my judgment. You may disagree with my close, but it wasn't related to numbers at all. If you want to recommend a move to "Medial capitals", you can certainly request that, or just boldly do it. However, I predict that such a course would lead to immediate questions over whether any of the reliable sources from which this article is written use that phrase. Do they? I don't know. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    Well, reputable dictionaries call it "medial capitals", but I bet that many computer books call it "CamelCase". So citing references would not solve the problem, because each side will have their own idea of which soruces are more reputable.
    In vade retro satana, for example, I ran into a similar problem. The issue was how to translate the Lating word draco. Latin dictionaries unanimoulsy translate it as "serpent,snake", and that makes good sense in the context. But the popular traslation of the prayer instead has "dragon" (an English word that is derived from draco but refers to a different and relatively modern concept); and the English Catholic Encyclopedia repeats the traditional translation. So which is the most reputable source? (In that case too, I gave up and let "dragon" be.)
    Sigh. I think that one basic design flaw of Wikimedia is software is the distinction between an article's name and the redirects to it. That forces editors to arbitrarily choose among two or more equally valid names, and that in turn is the cause of much dispute and a huge waste of editors' time. If only... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It can be a waste of time, or not. That depends on various editors' decisions about how to best invest their time, and whether a given battle is worth their energy or not.

Regardless of each side having different ideas of which source is more reputable, I've closed over 1000 move requests, and cases where people even bother to argue from sources rather than just asserting that one title is "more correct" than another are distinctly in the minority. When we get down to concrete talk about sources, most naming disputes work themselves out, and many of the ones that don't... don't matter much. I'd put this particular page in that last category.

What's an example of a source that refers to CamelCase as "medial capitals"? I'm curious now. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is this page] from the Oxford Dictionary site (the first Google hit for "medial capitals"). It describes CamelCase with the name "medial capitals" and even cites a 1998 English usage book. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You might be able to make a good case for moving to Medial capitals. I think it would be appropriate to handle that separately from the request above, because most people responding to that commented on the proposal of moving to Camel case, so we didn't really gauge consensus regarding Medial capitals. I wouldn't just make the move without a specific discussion though, because this is clearly an issue that people have opinions about.

Incidentally, these discussions tend to attract, in addition to those with this page on their watchlist, people who are interested in naming conventions, and who therefore watch the requested moves page. I'm not claiming that those editors are a representative sample of editors or of readers, just mentioning that we exist. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)