Talk:Camel case

Merged with Camel case, retitled

This page should be merged with Camel case. --Zundark 11:38 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

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)

Done. Kingturtle 04:39 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

"CamelHumps" Citation

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:

http://www.jetbrains.com/scripts/search?words=camelhumps

209.216.208.251 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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 134.159.168.72 (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).

Requested move (2012) to Camel case

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.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

---

CamelCase → Camel case – Google ngram viewer ([1]) 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)

Survey

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 policy on article titles.

• 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)

• Oppose - Pretty much would have said what Jojalozzo--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 01:32, 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 -- 70.50.151.36 (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. -- 70.50.151.36 (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. Powers ^T 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)
  • Sorry, I must have missed the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not fun policy. Powers ^T 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fun and cleverness are great, in the right namespace. Jojalozzo 04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

PascalCase vs camelCase

The article is wrong. Please note the following:

Camel case is a word compilation technique that capitalizes the first letter of each word in the compilation except the first.

Pascal case is a word compilation technique that capitalizes the first letter of each word regardless of position in the compilation.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x2dbyw72%28v=vs.71%29.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.112.57 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with 98.237.112.57. 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. 88.159.78.61 (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 135.196.5.155 (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

For pragmatic reasons, "camelCase" and "PascalCase" should be capitalized that way. Both cases are distinctly different and are typically used in different situations. Those are the commonly used names. The article should be corrected and split in two. A reference can be made to the wrong and misleading camel image. Fixing this article can help to eliminate all confusion and ambiguity that may exist. I'm surprised this hasn't been done yet, so perhaps there is a good reason for it, but I can't think of any. Can I just be so bold as to just make this change? Richie765 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sans-serif

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)

Requested move 22 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved – Support and Oppose opinions are roughly equivalent numerically, hinting at a lack of consensus. However, arguments must be evaluated in the lens of policy. From statistics cited by both sides, it appears that there is no dominant spelling for this expression in sources. Consequently we must defer to Wikipedia's house style per MOS:TITLE, MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS viz. in a nutshell Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Therefore, like other cases mentioned (Title case, Snake case, All caps), this article should be titled "Camel case". Sorry for killing the self-referential joke! — JFG ^talk 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

---

CamelCase → Camel case – This is a reheating of the previous discussion, which closed with no consensus over four years ago. No reasonable justification was given for writing camel case in camel case; it violates the rules of good grammar. User:GKFX^talk 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose If you check out professionally edited books on http://books.google.com, you will find that camel case, camelcase, camel-case and CamelCase are all used. The fact that New Scientist, Volume 196 and MacRuby: The Definitive Guide: Ruby and Cocoa on OS X (ISBN 144931967X, from O'Reilly, who doesn't use any consistent spelling for this word throughout its books) use this form are justification for leaving the choice in our hands, and I think stare decisis is good justification for not moving it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've never seen "Camel case" before encountering this discussion; it's virtually always "CamelCase" in my experience. "CamelCase" is the name of this phenomenon (comparable to "JavaScript"), not merely a normal descriptor; it doesn't violate the rules of good grammar any more than "Kampgrounds of America" violates the rules of good spelling for "campgrounds". Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The only reason it's sometimes written CamelCase is as a self-referential example to show people what camel case actually is. As for it being a "name", as suggested in the oppose above, you can't compare it to JavaScript. It is not a trademark or a proper name, it's simply an English language two word noun. As the nom says, there is no other reason per our WP:MOS as to why we should format an English language term in this odd fashion. See also Title case (not Title Case), All caps (not ALL CAPS), Snake case (not snake_case) etc. etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support (OP). Regarding professional books, Google Ngrams^[2] makes it clear that, as of 2008, use of the spelling "camelCase" was significantly lower than camel case, and declining. As Amakuru says, some of that supposed usage will in fact be just as an example. (I checked camelcase, and it's never used.) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You ignored camel-case and Camel Case. Furthermore, camel case comes up with quotes about "the Joe Camel Case", whereas I see no false positives for CamelCase. Moreover, in 2005, the CamelCase combination was more common than the camel case combination; given that the closest data is eight years ago, I don't think that gives us any information about which is more successful now. As we don't have hard numbers on the sample size and there aren't that many samples in Google Books, I don't think we can say that there's anything statistical significant about the numbers. All in all, I think that's exactly what I said; multiple options are frequently used, without anything dominant enough that we have to use it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Google Ngrams does not have enough instances of the "Joe Camel Case" to plot a graph^[3], and so I doubt that it is affecting the data. The fact that the two variants reached approximate equality in 2005 is neither here nor there; as you say, the small sample size makes it impossible to really say that your variant was more popular in the real world. Overall, the graph shows an almost-consistent preference for "camel case", which would tend to make me trust it. 18:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. "Camel case" is more prominent on Google Books than "CamelCase". I see no compelling policy or style reason to prefer the less common version.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. While I find the nom's rationale questionable at best, the data presented above on current usage is conclusive. The world has moved on and so must we. I confess some personal regret, having cut my WikiTeeth on CamelCase PageNames, but there you go. Andrewa (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The spelling "CamelCase" shows what is being described, and distinguishes from any zoological uses. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • As made clear by Amakuru, there is no need to name articles to show what is being described; in the previous debate, it was pointed out that the article German language is not called Deutsche Sprache, and the article about italics is not titled in italics. As for zoological uses, it should be abundantly obvious whether an article is about orthography or dromedaries. 14:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, CamelCase is the commonly used name. Calidum ¤ 05:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per conclusion in the first request. However, this form is more commonly used. Google sources and info are not to be preferred over others unless there is no coverage of it.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:13, 2 October 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

(edit conflict)

• Support. I had to think about this one a bit. I kind of like the idea of using the article title to demonstrate the concept, so I haven't been uncomfortable with the current title. But, in actual English-language usage, this form is always used for proper names. Per the article, in traditional use in natural language, the only use of camel case is for personal names such as MacDonald. Camel case might also be legitimately used in abbreviations and acronyms, but the term "camel case" itself is neither. Camel case is mostly used for corporate trade names, which are all proper nouns which should rightfully be capitalized. However, camel case itself is not a proper name. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters tells us to "avoid unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names" – "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." While Ngrams shows us that the term is often capitalized, it does not show us that it is consistently capitalized. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity I added camelCase to the Ngram. Suprised that it had that much usage. wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: In some computing circles (possibly limited to Microsoft and .NET developers, although there might be more), "camel case" only refers to the camelCase setup, where the initial letter is not capitalised but subsequent ones are. Logically, that's more like a camel, since it has a hump in the middle but not at either end... In that terminology, the version with initial capital as well, is called "PascalCase".  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think primarily of Bactrian camels, as the two-caps form originally took off in the late 1970s (CompuServe)... the initial lower case (dromedary) form took off in the dot-com era. eBay, which predates iMac, first comes to my mind. wbm1058 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Camel case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021025516/http://bloggingabout.net/blogs/jschreuder/archive/2006/11/14/How-to_3A00_-Change-casing-in-Text-to-TitleCase.aspx to http://bloggingabout.net/blogs/jschreuder/archive/2006/11/14/How-to_3A00_-Change-casing-in-Text-to-TitleCase.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411055228/http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cit/Courses/CPT355/C_Sharp_Coding_Standards_and_Guidelines.asp to http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cit/Courses/CPT355/C_Sharp_Coding_Standards_and_Guidelines.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407020530/http://wps.ablongman.com/long_hult_bnch_4/63/16207/4149058.cw/content/index.html to http://wps.ablongman.com/long_hult_bnch_4/63/16207/4149058.cw/content/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:PascalCase which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Why link to «Domain Name System Security Extensions» ?

> and to make multi-word domain names more legible

Should it link to «Domain_Name_System» instead?

--Tuxayo (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Darwin Case

The article currently states: "It has no known conventional use in computer programming [...]" This is not true, it is used in the Ada programming language since Ada 95. (see the following sections in the Ada style guide: http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/docs/95style/html/sec_3/3-1-1.html and http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/docs/95style/html/sec_3/3-1-3.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.221.120.78 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)