Talk:Camel case

(Rated B-class, Low-importance)

	v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Computing

(Rated B-class, Low-importance)

	v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved.

Merged with Camel case, retitled[edit]

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)

Darwin Case[edit]

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)

I can't find any sources about Darwin Case that themselves don't cite this page. Can we confirm that it is actually called that? Treyofdenmark (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Google Ngrams has "Darwin case" at 1/70th of the incidence of "camel case" (both case insensitive, [1]), and that's around the average for the years prior to widespread computing so is probably discussion of people actually called Darwin. Google Books has no relevant results for "darwin case" "camel case". The Ada guide mentioned by IP 91.* above doesn't name it either. I suspect it either isn't called Darwin case, or is called that by too few people to be notable. User:GKFX^talk 23:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea at all why it would be called Darwin case? (Am I being stupid or something??) - SquisherDa (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The edit that inserted this claim is here and originally stated "It has no known conventional use in computer programming but is named after Charles Darwin because of the way it has "evolved" from more traditional conventions." I have contacted the user who added it asking for a source. User:GKFX^talk 00:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed all of the existing text about "Darwin case" and replaced it with a note about the recommendation in the Ada style guide noted by IP above. User:GKFX^talk 10:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the edit. This style was introduced to me by a friend. After trying to hunt down a reference my understanding now is that that is what their group called it and not a formal name that I assumed it was. My apologizes for the misunderstanding. User:LaRaspberryJam 07:10, 04 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2020[edit]

Camel case → camelCase – Shouldn't the name of the article be how the thing is formatted? The 2nd Red Guy (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

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 this would make the URL more meaningful:

This would also agree with the first image in the article lead. fgnievinski (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: this old section is not an actual RM discussion. See WP:RM if you're serious, and start over. I'll oppose. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Done: #Requested move 18 February 2021. Thanks for the heads-up. fgnievinski (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hashtags and screen readers[edit]

Camel case is used frequently with hashtags, so we should add something about that. Also that it is preferable to use camel case for readability of hashtags with screen readers. I’ll try to add it later but I might forget and if someone else wants to, go for it. Skippingrock (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

French[edit]

Camel case also appears in French, in names like d'Albret. I think this is some kind of nobiliary particle, but is it worth including here because it has the apostrophe? Red Panda 25 13:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2021[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Camel case → camelCase – The 2nd Red Guy (talk · contribs) initiated a previous requested move on 30 June 2020 arguing that "Shouldn't the name of the article be how the thing is formatted?" For some reason the formatting didn't work out, so I'm reposting. fgnievinski (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support this would make the URL more meaningful:

This would also agree with the first image in the article lead. fgnievinski (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support self-demonstrating title, even if it's for the sake of a joke. O.N.R. ^(talk) 22:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose – WP eschews joke-like odd stylings such as the proposed. The "normal" styling is quite common in sources. No problem with the lead image illustrating the style though. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Not a brand name. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose – Avoid gimmicks. Tony (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)�
Oppose – Avoid gimmicks. E-Kartoffel (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose why on earth would this be a good idea?—blindlynx (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, you know. fgnievinski (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose As unnecessary stylization._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.