Talk:PascalCase

Recent Usage
The original article's definition is unnecessarily strict, inconsistent with current usage (except Microsoft & possibly others) and inconsistent with the Wiki article Camel case. I have added a section to address this. IMHO opinion, no further discussion is needed on this page as article Camel case is very detailed. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Review
Senior editor please review to see if Issues Warning is still warranted. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2017

 * 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The result of the move request was: request withdrawn. – I withdraw my own request since no one else has supported this request. Please discuss the merger issue at the section below. For more edit history, see, e.g., No such user's "Merge/redirect proposal", 64.105.98.115's supporting "Merge and redirect", and my adding the section for the "Merger proposal". --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

PascalCase → Pascal case – Pascal case is more commonly used than PascalCase, and Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. For more discussion, see, e.g., JFG's opinion at Talk:Camel case. Neo-Jay (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC) CN¥

Merger proposal
No such user proposed merging PascalCase into Camel case and 64.105.98.115 agreed at the above section for "requested move". Per Merging, I added move templates to articles PascalCase and Camel case for them, and added this section to discuss the "merger proposal", and also moved their comments from the above section to this section. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Camel case, really. The only difference is a minor quibble whether Pascal case allows lowercase first letter, and it is already covered in Camel case. I don't see anything worthy of a full article here. No such user (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as suggested by No such user above. This article is a few paragraphs about an ill-defined variant of camel case; it should just be covered in the larger article. Neo-Jay, any editor is allowed to make suggestions that they believe will improve article titling in a requested move discussion, especially when those suggestions are correct. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: 64.105.98.115 moved his/her comment and No such user's comment back to the above section and said: "This should just be discussed above, and please don't alter the context of my comments as you did here." I reverted that edit and closed the move discussion as I withdrew my own request for moving. The proper place to discuss the merger issue is here, not there. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that we're not bureaucracy, and we're free to discuss article improvements in any way we see fit. Format of the discussion is less important than its content. Not a big deal anyway. No such user (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An editor who proposes a merger should, in my humble view, at least add merge templates (Template:Merge or Template:Merge to/Template:Merge from) to relevant articles. And adding a proper section at talk page is good for other editors to participate in the relevant discussion. And I have finally done these things for you. Hope a consensus can be achieved here. And I am neutral on this merger issue. Thanks for your discussion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge – Logical action. — JFG talk 02:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge. Clearly just a variant sub-topic, and we have no need of a content fork like this, especially on a language-by-language-basis or we could end up with dozens of such pointless mini-articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2018

 * 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: MOOT as merged (with an apparent consensus to do so, here and in the above section) (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

PascalCase → Pascal case – It should be more consistent with Camel case and Snake case. I think I can't move it because Pascal case is currently a redirect to PascalCase.  User:matmatpenguin &#124;leave an orangered 04:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a merge to Camel case, as recommended in the article, would be a better idea because the page is very short. JE98 (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONSISTENCY, failing a merge to Camel case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Camel case, because it's the identical topic by a different name. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a few words to Camel case, so the merge is done. I'll change this one to a redirect; anyone who objects feel free to revert and propose a different path. It won't matter how the RM is closed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2018 (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.