Talk:Letter case

message: I know CamelCase and snake_case but what about ala-lisp-case (supported by Perl 6 btw), does it go by another name?  82.67.232.89 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Reference 18 is a link to a lodash doc that defines "kebab-case" using a link to this Wikipedia article, I think it should be removed 50.59.178.98 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: reference 18 comment

message: Since Unicode 5.1, the phrase "An example of a letter without both forms is the German ß (ess-tsett), which exists only in minuscule" is not entirely correct anymore. I think that should be mentioned here, but do not see how to do that nicely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.224.39 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unicode didn't change anything. It says right there in the code chart "uppercase is 'SS'"—because it doesn't have its own upper-case character. (Besides that, Unicode represents writing systems, it doesn't own them and doesn't change their rules.)—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an uppercase sz, however! See german wikipedia  for reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.66.10.152 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion about ß is interesting but seems out of all proportion for the introduction to this article Tesspub (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph about the ß is rather long, it leaves the impression of being complete. I would also like to have the 5.1 upper case character mentioned - at least in a footnote or with a link to further information. The rule ß becomes SS in all upper case is not always correct, I know of one important exception: in German passports surnames are written all upper case, but the ß is never replaced by SS because it would be a loss of information. After all ss is not equal ß by law. And someone having it one way is not allowed to write his name the other way, and vice versa. So an all-uppercase name still technically has a lower case character, which obviously causes problems in computing. Hence the upper case ß (finally).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.236.141 (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital sz?

message: Capitalization or capitalisation?  I note that User:Dreaded Walrus fixed this inconsistency quite recently in Capitalization.  The best (Oxford) references confirm the 'z' spelling as acceptable in both UK and US canons. So I've made the change in this article as well. Bjenks (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford spelling rules specify that "z" is used when the root word is of Greek origin and "s" when the root word is of Latin origin (i.e. entered English via Latin, even if it started life as Greek). "Capital" entered English from Latin via French and therefore takes an "s". Tesspub (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did "Oxford" become the authority on English?  Last I checked Noah Webster put the kibosh on that idea over 200 years ago when "Oxford" decided that cookie wasn't really a word (have they been able to wrap their head around that, yet?). A less subjective view can be obtained using the computerized search of COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American (English)) which shows capitalize used 1346 times and capitalise used 5 times.  In the British National Corpus the frequency was 84 to 169, respectively.  Jingoism aside,  most will conclude that "capitalise" will have a short stay on the endangered list on its way to extinction.  Now, back to my milk and cookies. N0w8st8s (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I, too, went on and changed from "capitalise" with an S to "capitalize" with a Z, but this is more like the sneakers/trainers, pants/trousers,  color/colour, honor/honour, favor/favour, favorite/favourite, soccer/football or practice/practise war. --Marce 13:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

text: According to FAQ no "correction" is needed, except when the article is inconsistent, or pertains to a particular nation.  Unfortunately there are now so many revolting revolutionaries in Her Majesty's colonies showing continual disregard for the wishes of The Crown that I fear the Internet appears doomed to descend into a miserable tomb of misspelling, cookie consumption and all manner of other depravities.  Yours impartially, 103.1.70.123 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK and US spellings coincide. 

message: I'm not sure about the analogy of hiragana and katakana to English (or Roman) cases and/or italics. It's somewhat correct in that one or the other can be used where it wouldn't normally be to create emphasis, but it creates emphasis as a secondary effect unlike case or italics. Hiragana is generally used for words native to the Japanese language while katakana is used for foreign loan words and foreign proper names, or where a phonetic transcription of a word normally written in kanji is preferred. Emphasis is created when the wrong one is used because it is usually notably incorrect for the context, whereas italics are specifically intended to create emphasis. It's sort of a difficult quirk of the Japanese language to explain, however, so I'm wondering if it belongs in the context of this article. RockinHobbit (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the analogy between hiragana/katakana and Roman/italics is reasonable but inappropriate and potentially confusing in this article Tesspub (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think it is confusing to suggest that katakana/hiragana is analogous to upper/lower case. Since zero out of four people support its inclusion I have deleted it. 86.130.66.65 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other forms of case - Hiragana and katakana 

message: Whether or not the matter requires more discussion, it was at least erroneous to say
: ... varying conventions are used for capitalizing words in publication titles and headlines.... The main examples are (from most to least capitals used):
Some, probably most, of the listed conventions may be less important than the things ineligible for that list. These include down-casing of "unimportant words", without a rigorous principle for specifying them, or even with the intent of context determining what is important. For example, two different short-story plots would justify the titles
: ... And this is my Red Corvette
or 
: ... And This is my Red Corvette
or 
: ... And this is My Red Corvette
respectively.--Jerzy•t 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title case 

message: "the letters of upper and lower cases are spaced out equally. In ASCII they are consecutive, whereas with EBCDIC they are not"
Either i'm misunderstanding the intended meaning, or this is flat-out wrong! There are 6 characters—[\]^_`—between majuscule Z and minuscule a in the ASCII character set. Whilst in terms of codepoints 5 of these can be considered opposite case of {|}~@, lexicographically they are punctuation and accentuation symbols—not letters.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what it's talking about.  What it means is that A-Z are consecutive in ASCII, and a-z are also consecutive.  This contrasts with EBCDIC, which splits the letters up into A-I, J-R, and S-Z ranges. —DanBishop (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper and lower case are not consecutive in ASCII 

message: I don't think that in Arabic and Hebraic alphabets there are no capital letters. In fact, they do require letters of bigger size, but they are final letters instead of the initial ones, like in Latin and Greek alphabets since Renaissance. You should also say that during Ancient times there were non capital letters in Latin and Greek. And during Middle Age capital letters were used only at the beginning of a paragraph, not inside a sentence. Lele giannoni (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hebrew (not "Hebraic") alphabet final forms are not really bigger than non-final forms (though four of the five special final forms have descenders).  And Arabic final letterforms are not really bigger than isolated letterforms.  These contextual forms do not allow any choice (except in a few aberrant loanwords with פ in Modern Hebrew), so there's no functional similarity with capital letters in European alphabets. AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic and Hebraic

message: From the lead:
* "Most Western languages (certainly those based on the Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Armenian alphabets, and Coptic alphabets) use multiple letter-cases in their written form as an aid to clarity."
"Certainly" sounds like WP:OR. I think it should be changed to "including". Toccata quarta (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: this issue isn't addressed in Brahmic scripts and not clear on google either. I guess people from South Asia could clarify this from direct experience. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No (though vowel sounds are written differently at the beginning of a word vs. in the middle of a word). AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  do Indic / Brahmic scripts have upper case vs lower case distinctions? 

message: "Titlecase" redirects to this article, but is not explained very well here... AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titlecase 

message: ß Piggyray (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take this pig take.24.7cageslave@Gmail.com ß 

message: It's not actually about size. A 24pt lowercase a will be larger than a 6pt uppercase a.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.228.159 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: larger and smaller

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Letter 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/20110510013903/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/index.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: everything is in the title  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.81.235.71 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes. It's just that apparently nobody ever established a "sexy" name for the naming conventions used by Lispish languages. Anyway, I think that the section Letter_case#Special case styles feels a bit out of place in the article, and a simple reference to Naming_convention (programming)#Multiple-word identifiers may be better. – Tea2min (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

text: The names include the word case by analogy to camel-case and Pascal-case, but they really don't have anything to do with case per se. I mean, the casing used for snake-case and kebab-case is identical. The only difference between them is the (non-cased) word separator. Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisp predates that irrelevant jQuery reference by so many decades that it makes the kebab case naming RIDICULOUS! 

message: UD? Kayou1488 (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . General Ization Talk   19:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UD? 

message: Is the use of the iota subscript in later Greek writing worth mentioning? TomS TDotO (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a diacritic, no relation to letter case. Largoplazo (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek iota subscript 

message: Given that entries are supposed to add to a discussion of how to improve the main article, are not entries on cryptic subjects, (such as UD? and English), which can mean nothing to the general reader, and probably mean nothing to anyone, an abuse of this facility?
Nuttyskin (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed English. UD? could have been a good-faith question by somebody who didn't know what "UD." (which appears in the article) was and might have wondered if it was a mistake requiring correction. It appears it had an outcome in that somebody added a clarification to the article. Yes, it would be nice if more people would communicate in full sentences and provide context for what they're talking about. Largoplazo (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptic subjects