Subject: View Criminal Report...

From: Public Arrest Record Database <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:25:40 -0700

All Arrest Records Now Posted Online

Access Granted to Atompub-archive -

[Lookup Anyone's Criminal History and Remain Anonymous]

Government Record Lookup Tool -> / http://www.rectover.com/gov/report/generated.index

|Criminal Records|Judgements & Liens|Previous Addresses|Phone Numbers|Social Media Accounts

-
=
-
=
Urgent Info Services| 3205 Lake Sarah|Independence|MN|55359
http://www.rectover.com/00uf.djjwi - this is where you can send any settings change requests
=-
-=
=-
I wouldn't rely on Microsoft for any standard - if you look at their northwind database you'll see they use Plural Tables, Singular Column Names, Schema Prefixes for Tables, Table Prefixes for Primary Key Columns, Hungarian-esque Constraint Prefixes and worst of all SPACES " " for multi-word table names. Additionally system tables for SQLServer use plurals so it seems AdventureWorks was the black sheep in this bunch.   Marcus Pope Mar 20 '12 at 20:09 
14	  	gle person would be refferred to as a collection of People. But if you want to refer to it as a collection of Person, go right ahead.   Triynko Apr 21 '10 at 17:02	  	
@Emtucifor: Yes, lol. Naming the table "PersonCollection" would be equivalent to naming it "People". Contrast that with naming such a collection just "Person", which does not make sense :)   Triynko Apr 22 '10 at 15:04	
@Emtucifor: Then let's think of it from another angle to put the naming convention in a context. Suppose you have object classes for representing both the row and the table. "Person" obviously makes sense for the class that represents a row of data. If you're table was also named "Person", then you might have a naming conflict or some confusion. I just think that it makes more sense to name objects with accurate plurality. A row with data about a person should be called Person, and a table with information about people or multiple persons is called People, PersonCollection, Persons, etc.   Triynko Apr 23 '10 at 1
I think the main issue here is that the Singular table name crowd seem to consider the table as the entity, rather than the row in the table which the Plural crowd does. You have to ask your self which it is. If the table is just a container of rows, isn't it more logical to use plural naming? You would never name a collection in code singular, then why would you name the table singular? Why the inconsistency? I hear all the arguments about how they sort and use in joins but those all seem very flimsy arguments. If it all comes down to preference, I will go with the consistency and pluralize.   Jason Apr 10 '12 at 16:34
3	  	
Also consider which direction the tide is going